Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:91 -cv-001 80-RNC Document 533 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
P..l., etal., : CIVIL NO.
Plaintiffs, 2 29lCV001S0 (RNC)
v. :
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, etal.
Defendants. : AUGUST 21, 2007
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
I. FACTS
The plaintiffs move to compel responses to their Motion for Disclosure and Production
dated March 30, 2007 pursuant to Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P. Exhibit A. In support of this motion
the plaintiffs represent that for over tive years the plaintiffs and Expert Advisory Panel ("EAP")
have been requesting an explanation as to why significant reductions in the number of class
members was being reported each year. As Exhibit F indicates, the defendants have reported
that the class has shrunk in size from 4103 to 2794 students over the life of the Settlement
Agreement. The plaintiffs have requested an explanation orally and in writing beginning with
their October 18, 2002 comments to CSDE’s First Annual Report. The defendants’ have not
responded to plaintiffs’ objections allegedly because CSDE is not able to track class members
from year to year on its computer system. This explanation has never been acceptable to
plaintiffs.
In part, because of this problem, plaintiffs, in early 2006, retained a computer expert and

Case 2:91 -cv-001 80-RNC Document 533 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 2 of 4
demanded that defendants turn over all their computer data on class members for analysis. The
defendants responded by turning over only data on the students defendants considered to be
class members at the time. Data on the more than 1000 students who have apparently been
exited from the class was not provided based on the assertion that production ofthe data on
these students would require the disclosure of data on all students in special education in
Connecticut, many of whom are not class members.
Moreover, plaintiffs’ analysis of the limited data that was provided revealed that over
600 students floated in an out of the CSDE data set on class members, some as many as four or
five times over the life of the Settlement Agreement. The defendants claimed they could not
coniirm the accuracy of plaintiffs’ analysis even after plaintiffs’ methodology was made
available to defendants. Defendants indicated that they would have to hire a computer expert to
review all the CSDE data and address the concerns that have been expressed by plaintiffs and
the EAP for over five years.
Dissatisfied with defendants’ refusal to address plaintiffs’ concerns andfor produce all
the data on class members, the plaintiffs served a Motion for Disclosure and Production dated
March 30, 2007 on the defendants pursuant to Rules 26, 33 and 34, Fed. R. Civ. P. Exhibit A.
The defendants served objections and answers to this Motion on the plaintiffs on or about May
21, 2007. Exhibit B.
On June 19, 2007 the plaintiffs wrote a letter to defendants’ counsel, pursuant to Rules
33, 34 and 37(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., in a good faith attempt to resolve their differences with
defendants over their objections to plaintiffs’ Motion, as required by Local Rule 37(a)2. Exhibit
2

Case 2:91 -cv-001 80-RNC Document 533 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 3 of 4
C.
Plaintiffs are particularly concerned that defendants had not confirmed: 1) that
approximately 600 students floated in an out of the defendants’ computer data base, some as
many as four or five times, and 2) that plaintiffs’ analysis ofthe CSDE database was accurate.
Plaintiffs were also concerned that in response to Interrogatory ii 3 the defendants failed to
provide data from its computer system that would explain why each of these 600 class members
appeared, disappeared and reappeared in the data set, that in response to Interrogatories ## 4 and
5 defendants faiied to identify each student who has been exited from the CSDE data set and
provide specific infomation about why each of these students was exited from the class to help
explain why the class has been reduced in size by one-third, and that in response to Request for
Production # 4 the defendants refused to provide "all data on students who have exited the class,
whether from the PCI data base or another SCDE data base." Exhibit C.
Defendants responded in a letter dated July 2, 2007. Exhibit D. In that letter the
defendants acknowledged that plaintiffs’ analysis ofthe CSDE computer data - that 600
students have moved in and out of the class data base — was likely correct (Exhibit D, p. 1).
However, the defendants stated they were unable to address plaintiffs’ concerns relating to
Interrogatories ## 2, 3, 4 and 5I, and refused to produce "all data on students who have exited
1 Defendants assert on page 2 of their letter dated July 2, 2007 (Exhibit D) that the defendants were
"working to investigate the plaintiffs’ concern that the enforcement ofthe Settlement Agreement was
inadvertently provoking districts to, appropriately or inappropriately, exit members from the class by either
redetermining eligibility. . .under different eligibility categories.? but that they discontinued these efforts in
October 2004 based on a discussion with the EAP. Plaintiffs have never agreed that efforts to identify
missing class members could be abandoned, and, based on thc text of the EAP Reports to the Court, doubt
that the EAP made such a concession.
3

Case 2:91 -cv-001 80-RNC Document 533 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 4 of 4
the class" as requested by Request for Production it 4 because, they asserted, such disclosure
would violate the privacy rights of non-class members whose names appear on those databases.
As previously mentioned, tl1e defendants indicate that they intend to address p1aintiffs’
concerns by contracting with an independent data expert to assist in developing analytic
procedures that would yield a more accurate depiction of class membership from 1998 through
the current date. Defendants indicate further that this analysis is expected to be completed by
the fall of 2007 and that the CSDE analysis will be turned over to plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs
welcome an independent analysis, plaintiffs believe it is essential that they be permitted to
conduct their own analysis of the CSDE computer database.
Plaintiffs do not have confidence that any such analysis will be independent, timely or
will address plaintiffs” many concems about the CSDE databases, the reduction is the size of the
class and the adequacy of defendants’ monitoring and oversight of the class as a whole.
Therefore, this motion has been filed seeking orders under Rule 37 that will require defendants
to answer interrogatories #-2%+* 3-5 and produce the data identified in request for production # 4
including, but not limited to, all computer data relating to all students who have been identified
as mentally retarded or intellectually disabled at any time since December 1, 1999.
II. ARGUMEN'1`:
Rule 3?(a) provides that a party may apply for an order compelling discovery if that
party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or fails to permit inspection
submitted under Rule34. Rule 37(a)(2)(B).
4