District Court, two orders; District Court, response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, motion for order authorizing alternative means for preparation of transcript of the October 2, 2001, hearing; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, two orders; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, notice of audio-visual deposition; District Court, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents; District Court, responses of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) brief in support of motion to compet Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) complaince with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline); District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.f!JmfRRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl<ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT O 3 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEI\IE01 Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * OCT s 2001 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER On October 2, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Joshua Intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and other relief. For the reasons stated at that hearing and the reasons stated below, the Court made the following rulings on the issues presented in that motion: The Little Rock School District's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to Joshua are quashed except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to the LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing. Joshua is directed to provide the LRSD with any documents from Joshua monitors or members of the Joshua class that support or do not support an assertion that the LRSD has "misled" Joshua. If the LRSD cannot appreciate the significance of a witness or exhibit after Joshua provides its witness and exhibit lists to the LRSD for the upcoming hearing, the LRSD may ask Joshua for the significance of that witness or exhibit. The Court expects Joshua to stand by its representation at the hearing that it will provide that information. The parties will submit an agreed protective order governing e-mails requested from the LRSD by Joshua. Concerning Joshua's access to e-mails beyond March 15, 2001 , the LRSD is directed to notify the Court on or before Friday, October 5, 2001 , which of the two options it will choose: Option 1: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Should the LRSD choose Option 1, it is directed to ensure that it does not delete e-mails without preserving copies for Joshua. Other than the requirement in this paragraph to preserve copies of requested e-mails for Joshua should the LRSD select Option 1, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Administrative Directive EGAD ("The Use and Deletion of Electronic Mail"). By agreement of the parties as reflected at the hearing, the LRSD shall be permitted to take the depositions of the Joshua monitors and class representatives at a date and time to be agreed by the parties. If either party requests, the Court will be available to the parties during these depositions to address issues that cannot be resolved without the Court's intervention. The Court requests that the parties provide the Court advance notice of the dates and times for the depositions if the parties wish the Court to be available during the depositions. 2 Joshua is directed to pay the LRSD the amount required for the FOIA requests pursuant to LRSD Administrative Directive KDB ("Process for Making Requests for Information Under the FOIA"). Because the LRSD has assured the Court that LRSD Administrative Directive KDB applies to any person requesting FOIA material from the LRSD, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Directive KDB. Counsel for Joshua may, as always, participate in Joshua's continuing monitoring of the LRSD. The participation of counsel for Joshua in the monitoring shall be consistent with the Court's Order entered August 20, 2001 , in which the Court stated: [T]he Court directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case, and to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court. To clarify, counsel for Joshua is .not required to inform counsel for the LRSD before visiting a LRSD campus; however, if counsel for Joshua intends to communicate with district officials and personnel while visiting, counsel for Joshua shall be required to contact counsel for the LRSD as set forth above. The LRSD Student Handbook shall govern issues relating to the presence of counsel for Joshua at individual student disciplinary hearings. r:53, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~~:~ CHIEFWDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN iO - 3 --0 I sv__.\2t.....,_ _ _ FILED . U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT O 4 2001 ~~~ES\1~~~~ ~ljRK DEPCLeRT< LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs . 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT !') ZOO! OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court previously scheduled a hearing on Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John . Walker. In lignt of the correspondence received from Clay Fendley, 1 counsel for the LRSD, the contempt hearing will not be necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the contempt hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, is hereby canceled, and the motion for contempt is denied as moot . . -t_{ DATED this -1- day of October, 2001 . r Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON !O -() '-1-tJ I BY D'C ' 1A copy of Mr. Fendley's faxed letter is attached to .. - 516 RECEIVED OCT -9 2001 (1111(1- _ ___ IIIIJORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Response to Order filed October 3, 2001, states: 1. LRSD objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Joshua has requested all e-mails of the District's administrators and principals. This request is over broad and would place an undue burden on LRSD to respond. Every e-mail created by an administrator or principal is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LRSD also objects to the Court's selection of March 15, 2001 , as a cut-off date for the presentation of evidence for two reasons. First, the term of the Revised Plan did not end until May 31, 2001, the last day for students for the 2000-01 school year. Second, late compliance could constitute substantial compliance, and LRSD should be granted unitary status if it has substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, Section 11. 2. Without waiving these objections, LRSD states that it selects Option 2 with the understanding that documents "concerning the LRSD's activities withrespect to the Revised Desegregation Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001" will not be excluded from evidence simply because the documents are dated after March 15, 2001 . As LRSD understands the Court's decision, the Court does not want to hear evidence related to activities undertaken after March 15, 2001 , which should have been performed before March 15, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: C"{~l-~ }Z:,nristopher Heller ( #81083) ' t}ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 5, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker (hand-delivered) JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 RECEIVED OCT ~ 9 2001 - (IIU:lir ll&BtllD'amtllG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR'ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2001, HEARING For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") states: 1. This Court's Order of October 3, 2001 quashed LRSD's second set ofinterrogatories and requests for production "except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing" of October 2, 2001 . 2. Immediately after the October 2, 2001 hearing, counsel for LRSD approached the court reporter about obtaining a transcript and was advised that a hearing transcript could not be prepared before the November 19, 2001 hearing due to preexisting obligations. Counsel asked the court reporter if someone else could transcribe the tape or if LRSD could obtain a tape of the proceeding and have it transcribed. We were advised that the court reporter was not authorized to release tapes of proceedings. 3. This Court has inherent authority to control proceedings before it and authorize some alternate means of having the transcript prepared prior to the November 19, 2001 hearing, including authorizing another reporter to transcribe the tape or authorizing release of the tape to LRSD to have it transcribed. LRSD would agree to provide all requesting parties a copy of the transcript prepared from the tape and to return the tape to the court reporter so an official transcript can be prepared at her convenience. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court issue an Order authorizing the court reporter to employ some alternate means of preparing a transcript of the October 2, 2001 hearing, and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- BY. C  p er Heller (#8108 John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED, E~ 'i,11m~'ilt~SAS OCT 15 toot QfflCECI DESBH6A1Dlld_H_IIIE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 1 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ... ~ W a~RMACK, QERK WESTERN DIVISION J~  RMN . _ Sy: OE1' Cl11llt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL J\.1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 The Joshua Intervenors object to the response of the LRSD because it seeks to condition the Court's Order. The Court's Order was clear and unambiguous and should not be modified absent compelling cause which cause is stated for the record. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this A day of October, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201~ Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jo 1  Walker (._/ -2- QC I J  2001 FILED .. , .IJtOF IIEREGATION MONITORlf~G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 17 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. 1,etal., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW -.ECEIVEt  OCT 18 200\ QfflCE OF oES6EMlll talilllNG The Court is in receipt of Little Rock School District's response [docket no. 3517] to this Court's Order [docket no. 3515] filed October 3, 2001, as well as Joshua Intervenors' response in opposition [docket no. 3520] to LRSD's response. LRSD states in its response that it objects to "being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court."1 LRSD also states that it objects to the March 15, 2001 cut-off date for the presentation of evidence. The Court notes LRSD's objections. The Court acknowledges that LRSD may have evidence concerning its activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan") subsequent to March 1In its October 3, 2001 Order [docket no. 3515], the Court directed LRSD to choose from two options as follows: Option 1- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date.; Option 2- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Without waiving its objections, LRSD has informed the Court that it selects Option 2. ,. ' , 15, 2001 which may bear on the issue of whether LRSD has complied with the Revised Plan. The Court gave LRSD an opportunity to elect to present this evidence and LRSD has now rejected this opportunity. Should the Court ultimately sustain Joshua's objections to the Compliance Report and deny unitary status to LRSD, LRSD may in the future, when circumstances ~arrant, file additional motions in support of unitary status that would include compliance activities subsequent to March 15, 2001. The Court wishes to reiterate to LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. On March 15, 2001, LRSD filed its Notice and Compliance Report ("Compliance Report") [ docket no. 341 0], representing to the Court that as of that date, the district had achieved unitary status. Specifically~ LRSD stated: LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan.2 The Court reminds LRSD that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshua's objections to this Compliance Report. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshua's activities- Joshua's activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. It is the Compliance Report, and Joshua's objections thereto, which are now before the Court, and upon which the Court will focus. The Compliance Report represents that LRSD had complied with certain requirements of the Revised Plan; however, the evidence presented to date by Joshua demonstrates otherwise. The Court anticipates that LRSD will present evidence that the representations in the Compliance 2Docket no. 3410 ("Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order"), Paragraph No. 1. 2 Report are accurate and truthful. The truthfulness and accuracy ofLRSD's representations in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report could have bearing on the Court's disposition of the unitary status question. The Court assumes, without deciding, that if the district is in compliance, good faith will not be an issue.3 However, should the Court find compliance in some areas but a failure of compliance in others, the district's good faith will determine the extent to which the Court may withdraw its monitoring activities. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,491 (1992) ("A court's discretion to order the incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal [is] . . . whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree . . .. "). THEREFORE, the Court's Order [docket no. 3515] of October 3, 2001 is hereby clarified to bring into focus for LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. -tr~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / I DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF JU~' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3Toe Court is mindful that the district has promised good faith in the revised plan: "LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis ofrace, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools." LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of January 16, 1998 at 2.1 [Exhibit A to docket no. 3107]. 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN ID-- \1-0\ sv_sf( ____ ~ECEIVED OCT 19 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 7 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:M_E_S-'--~~f..J..A~~44-~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM") for - approval of the ODM budget for 2001-02. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the ODM budget for 2001-02. fr..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~#A~~ HIEFJUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULJ: 58 AND/O~a) FRCP ON JO"'( "rf "0 I 5y_V-'--\ __ _ 1 The ODM communicated the proposed budget to the Court in a letter dated September 25, 2001. See docket no. 3509 [September 28, 2001 Order giving parties 15 days to object to the ODM budget for 2001-02], attachment. ra 5 2 2 10 - 30 -o I I .'30Jwt f, -c.l~- i-;J }r-e1 rVJ ~J:Je, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN.DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866RECE\VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Orr\CtOf OESEGRf.GA1\0ll lAOmt0mi& PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Exhibit 1 attached) by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua hand-delivered responses to LRSD on September 24, 2001. 2. Joshua's responses (Exhibit 2 attached) were unverified and otherwise failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff outlined the deficiencies in a letter dated September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 3 attached), and requested that Joshua supplement its responses. 3. Joshua has not responded to Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001. 4. Joshua should be compelled to provide responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Joshua attached a copy of Plaintiffs September 27, 2001, letter to their Motion for Definition and Clarification of the Issues and for Other Relief. This Court held a hearing on that Motion on October 2, 2001, and issued an Order the following day. While the Court quashed Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, it did not address Joshua's responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full, complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status; that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501_) 376-2011 BY:_....,q.::c:..:;_::......::t:....,;,__J~=...,,..<C>o<...f,.-4.---H_,.__ 2 hristopher Heller (#810 3). hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#9218 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by t.if _.. mail on October 25, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 2001\dcs-mot-compcl-clarification.wpd ,, 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL 8-9- o I PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA TORJES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), and submits the fo ll owing Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) "you" or "your" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) "person" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm , associa tion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) "communicate" or "communication" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether foce to face, by telephone, mail , personal deli very, or otherwise; (D) "document" EXHIBIT Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, "document" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the tenn "control" as used in the preceding sentence, a documen t is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a-request for identification or production is in you r co ntrol , but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession - or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, bu t is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) "identify" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc .) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identi ty of such 2 The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. fNTERROGATORY NO. I: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. fNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representati ve and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed - monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revi sed Desegregation and Education Plan . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 fNTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June IO, 1999, on July, I, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, 1999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, I 999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communica tions between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March I 5, 2000. fNTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial di sparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD; (c) Whether LRSD's response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for ra ising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD; ( c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents per1aining to yo ur response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racia l discrimination in the imposition of discipline. fNTERROGA TORY NO. I 0: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions nre of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March I 5, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to you r response to the preceding inte