Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
P. 1
Connecticut Response to P.J. Appeal

Connecticut Response to P.J. Appeal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 51|Likes:
Published by mtuccitto
Court document/ CT Attorney General's office's response filed in court to P.J. case appeal
Court document/ CT Attorney General's office's response filed in court to P.J. case appeal

More info:

Published by: mtuccitto on Oct 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
10-3586
-CV 
To Be Argued By:
DARREN P. CUNNINGHAM Assistant Attorney General
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
P.J., By & Through His Parents & Next Friends Mr. & Mrs. W.J., L.G., By &Through Her Parents & Next Friends Mr. & Mrs. L.G., M.L., By & Through Parents& Next Friends Mr. & Mrs. J.L.,
 
 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Ian Ian Katz, By and Through His Parents and Next Friends Mr. & Mrs. MarkKatz, Connecticut Association or Retarded Citizens, Inc., Coalition or InclusiveEducation, Connecticut Coalition o Citizens with Disabilities, People First, Inc.,
Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CT Board o Ed., Education, Dept o, Tirozzi, Gerald, Comm.,
Defendants-Appellees,
Regional School District 15, Board o Education, Regional School District No. 15,Board o Education,
Consolidated Defendant,
West Hartord Board o Education, Windham Board o Education, Stamord Boardo Education, Wethersfeld Board o Education,
Defendants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
GEORGE JEPSEN ATTORNEY GENERAL DARREN P. CUNNINGHAM Assistant Attorney General55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120Hartford, CT 06141-0120Tel.
 
(860) 808-5318
Case: 10-3586 Document: 165 Page: 1 07/12/2013 988664 100
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... ivJURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................... 1STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................... 2STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 3STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................................................................ 6I. ORIGINAL ACTION ............................................................................ 6II. The Settlement Agreement – Key Provisions ..................................... 7 A. Class Membership (Section I) ........................................................... 7B. Goals and Outcomes (Section II) ....................................................... 8C. Jurisdiction (Section III) ................................................................... 9D. Monitoring (Section V) .................................................................... 10E. CSDE Designee (Section VI(2)) ....................................................... 10F. Expert Advisory Panel (Section IX) ................................................ 11III. Post Settlement .................................................................................. 11 A. The First Five Years of the Settlement Agreement ....................... 111. The 2005 Dispute Over Class Member Information andResolution ..................................................................................... 122. 2007 Site Visits ............................................................................ 203. Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs .............................................. 20B. The Final Three Years of the Settlement Agreement .................... 21(August 2007 – August 2010) .......................................................... 211. Final EAP Meeting ....................................................................... 212. Longitudinal Database ................................................................. 213. Discovery Ruling .......................................................................... 274. Voluntary Discovery Provided ..................................................... 30
Case: 10-3586 Document: 165 Page: 2 07/12/2013 988664 100
 
 
ii
a. Depositions .............................................................................. 30b. Data ......................................................................................... 32c. Reconvening of the EAP ......................................................... 32IV. Evidentiary Hearing .......................................................................... 34 V. District Court Ruling ......................................................................... 36SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 36 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 38I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 38II. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT THE STATEWAS NOT IN “SUBSTANTIAL NON-COMPLIANCE” WITH THESETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ......................................................... 41 A. Standard of Review ......................................................................... 41B. The District Court Used the Correct Legal Standard .................... 43C. The State Complied With Its Obligations Concerning the FiveGoals and Outcomes ........................................................................ 581. The Goals Do Not Contain a Qualitative Component ................. 592. If Considered the Reclassified Students Should Not Be AnalyzedSeparately and the District Court Properly Considered theState’s Progress ............................................................................ 633. The Agreement Did Not Require the State Meet Benchmarks .. 70D. The District Court Did Not Find That the State Violated Section Iof the Agreement and the State Did Not Violate Section I ........... 73E. The District Court Did Not Err in Concluding that the Class WasNot Permitted Conventional Discover in the Final Three Years of the Settlement Agreement .............................................................. 81F. The State Did Not Improperly “Dismiss” the EAP and Under the Agreement the State’s Obligations Ran Only Five Years .............. 86CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 91
Case: 10-3586 Document: 165 Page: 3 07/12/2013 988664 100

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->