IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LT FiLED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 0 1 2001 ^ames w. McCormack, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAWTIFF*< V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR DEFINITION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUES AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors request the Coun to enter a written ruling defining the issue and the scope of this proceeding. The Joshua Intervenors make this request in order to obtain clarification of the issue(s) that the Court is now hearing and of the expectations of the Court with respect to issues which the LRSD seeks to inject into the proceedings which have not been raised by the LRSD in a formal pleading. The precipation for this motion is affirmative inquiries into the activities of Joshuas counsel for which no complaint is made or relief sought. On August 13,2001, the LRSD served an extensive set of interrogatories upon the Joshua Intervenors. (See Plaintiffs Motion to Compel filed Friday, September 21,2001. On Monday, September 24,2001, the district withdrew its motion and on September 25,2001, the Court entered an Order dismissing the motion as moot.) The LRSD has now filed a second set of interrogatories upon Joshua. Those interrogatories reflect that LRSD is trying to develop the defense to its motion for declaration of unitary status that the -1-4 Joshua Intervenors had certain duties to assist the LRSD in reaching unitary status under the Revised Desegregation Education Plan which duties were not fulfilled by Joshua. The LRSD, however, has not filed a motion or presented at any time during these proceedings a request for relief with respect to unitary status regarding the involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. The only relief that the district has sought has been a citation of contempt of court upon Joshua counsel and that motion is now pending for hearing before the Court on October 16, 2001. The Joshua Intervenors have responded by undersigned counsel to the first set of interrogatories propounded by counsel for the LRSD. Joshua noted in responding to those interrogatories that it was answering them without waiving objection to the propriety of the district filing them in the first place. (See Exhibit C) Joshua is without notice of the purpose of either set of interrogatories. The LRSD counsel informed the Court on June 29,2001, that it expected to introduce only one exhibit in support of its motion for unitary status. Mr. Heller then stated: "Our only exhibit will be the DRA scores that were announced to the board last night, and reported in the paper this morning. Beyond that there is nothing else that we plan to use .. . See pages 13 and 14 of the transcript before the Court dated June 29, 2001. The Court and the Settlement Agreement determined that the burden of proof was upon the Joshua Intervenors to demonstrate the shortcomings or failings of the LRSD which supported Joshuas position that a declaration of unitary status was premature and not supported by the evidence. During the proceedings on June 29, 2001 before the Court, LRSD did not indicate that it was in need of any information whatsoever from the Joshua Intervenors. This was because its March 15,2001 Compliance Report and the DRA scores, supra, reflected the success of the Revised -2-Desegregation and Education Plan. The focus of the June 29, 2001 proceeding was upon the information to be provided Joshua by the LRSD that related to the issue of the districts compliance with the Court Orders herein. The Court indicated
a) . . . . I would ask that the district open up its personnel to him [Joshua counsel] and to his staff so that he will be able to get whatever discovery he needs . . . and that you willingly hand over discovery
b) ... if its true that Mr. Pendley is sitting on a whole lot of stuff I would hope that he would provide it to Mr. Walker
insofar as Mr. Walker needs to review it.
c) since the LRSD is a public institution I dont have the same protective attitude towards its documents and other papers that I might, if you were not a public institution
d) .... so I would hope that you would be cooperative and give Mr. Walker what he needs. Pages 26 and 27 [letters parenthesized are not a part of the Court transcript]. The Court went on to indicate that Mr. Walker should hand over to Mr. Heller and Mr. Pendley any exhibits he intends to use. Page 29. When Joshua sought to address the issue of the State obligation, the Court directed that Joshua remain focused on the issue before the Court. [Underlining added for emphasis]. The Court said: I am not here to talk about the States obligation, and you may file something with the Court... in the form of a motion. All lam here right noyv is to talk about Little Rock, whether Little Rock is substantially complying. " (June 29, 2001 transcript. -j-page 34). The Court further made it clear that she did not wish to address Mr. Walkers unwritten objections regarding promises made in the Convenant of the school District. She said: . you want to file something with the Court objective to that, that's not before me right now. The Court indicated to defense counsel that she would expect Mr. Walker to ... let them know what you are going to use ... but I am not going to require that any FOI requests that you put there be filtered through the attorney. Pages 46 and 47. The Court only required Joshua provide to the district with its witness and exhibit list. Page 53. That has been done. The LRSD refuses, since the beginning of the school term, to provide any further e-mail review to the Joshua Intervenors unless Joshua agrees to a protective order. See exhibit F, letter from J. Clay Fendley dated September 12,2001. Joshua notes that no such order was required for the top administrators e-mails and that the Court has not imposed that requirement. The Plaintiff LRSD is now in the position where it has sought not only discovery from the Joshua Intervenors regarding issues not before the Court for which LRSD seeks no relief from Joshua, it compounds the problem by propounding further interrogatories and discovery beyond the voluntary responses which were provided to the plaintiff on September 24, 2001. A copy of the districts second set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua Intervenors regarding Joshuas objections to unitary status is attached hereto as Exhibit A. There is also attached hereto as Exhibit B, a letter with objections to the responses from the plaintiff that is extensive regarding the first set of interrogatories. The third attachment (Exhibit C) is Joshua counsels letter to district -4-counsel regarding the discovery. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to define the parameters of the districts efforts to obtain discovery from the Joshua Intervenors and to determine what issues, if any, the Court will address in the proceedings that are now in recess, if any, other than the districts motion for a declaration of unitary status. Joshua brings to the attention of the Court that it is frustrated with the status which Joshua finds itself in because of the LRSD attorneys refusal to cooperate, as directed, and provide discovery in the form of FOIA responses as directed and as requested. Joshua is also frustrated because the district lawyers, through Superintendent Kenneth James, have sought to impede the Joshuas access to information. Dr. James has now promulgated a regulation known as Administrative Direct ADB which requires that the district charge Joshua for FOIA copies at the rate of $.25 per page, see Exhibit D. Because of that AD, the district now refuses to provide responses to Joshua without prepayment of costs if the document is 25 pages or more. The administrative directive came after and upon the Courts directive that Joshua may use FOIA in order to obtain information. It has been applied only to Joshua. Joshuas frustration is further noted by Administrative Directive EGAD fExhibit Ei which requires the school district employees to delete their e-mail files within 15 days after transmittal or reception. This directive was created, on information and belief, to be effective on October 1, 2001 and in response to the Courts comments regarding e-mail use during the last hearing. Joshua submits that it was made by Dr. James in an effort to prevent access to information by the Joshua Intervenors and to frustrate the Courts Orders. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that clarification is needed from the Court to determine the extent to which they should be required to respond to a second set of interrogatories -5- and to further reply to a first set of same which (a) have no essential purpose, (b) about which the Court has never been given notice by the school district, and (c) for which no relief is sought by LRSD. The Court is further called upon to clarify whether the district may frustrate Joshuas access to information which the Court authorized Joshua to obtain by promulgation and enforcement of restrictive administrative regulations which effectively apply only to Joshua. Joshua is further concerned that the regulations appear to be an effort by the district to limit the scope of the Courts mling with respect to Joshuas access to information. In other words, the district appears to be attempting to overrule the Courts decision that Joshua is entitled to access to information freely and without restrictive conditions. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order defining and clarifying the issues which are before the Court. Joshua further prays for other relief including (a) providing Joshua access to the promised e-mails, (b) quashing interrogatories which plaintiff has submitted to Joshua, and (c) suspending implementation of the Policy Directives DB-KDB and DB-EGAD. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) 1) 374-4187 (^) By: W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 -6- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing^as been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this j^^^ay of September, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM Qne Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 / John W. Walker .J. -7- 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), and submits the following 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' .It 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, association. 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 face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise
(D) "document' .11 ihi't' f\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 generahty 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 term "control" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof V 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 your control, 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. but 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 dehvered, the identity of such person known or reasonably behevedby you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof. 2and a brief description of the subj ect matter thereof, all with sufScient particularity to request its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(hi) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the cnrmm ini cation took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed
(F) "Pertaining to It Shall mean constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to. mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention. communication, allegation or activity identified
(G) To "describe in detail It Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event. statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, "act") all facts concerning any such act known to Plaintiffs after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the date, the location, and the identify of each person involved
(H) "or" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope
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. 3If 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- INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. 1 INTERROGATORYNO. 2: Please identify all persons you intend to call as a witness i at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all documents you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and persons in any way connected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce aU documents pertaining to communications between you and persons in any way connected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify and describe in detail all commumcations between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. a.INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all nnm-rrm-m'cations between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce aU documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERRQGATORY NO. 7: For each expert witness that you may call as a witness 7 at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001, please provide a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons therefor
identify and describe in detail the documents, communications, data or other infoimation considered by the witness in forming the opinions
provide the quahfications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness withing the preceding ten (10) years
provide the compensation to be paid for investigation and testimony
and provide a listing of all other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all contemporaneous time records maintained by you pertaining to your monitoring of LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all information provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or 5consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining ro LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's comphance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify all LRSD employees who have provided you information or documents without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify and describe in detail all oral r.riTnmuTiications between you and LRSD employees since August 17, 2001, pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which took place outside the presence of coxmsel for LRSD. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Joshua monitor identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, please: (a) describe in detail all education, training and experience that you believe quahfies them to serve as monitors
(b) describe in detail all monitoring activities undertaken by them, mcluding the dates, times and locations where monitoring occurred and the subject matter of the morutoring
and (c) describe in detail each and every instance where the monitoring revealed what you contend was noncompliance or bad faith implementation of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 6REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your monitoring of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, including but not limited to any notes or summaries of monitoring activities. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: You allege in your response to Request for Production No. 1 of Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that Dr. Les Camine and Chris Heller requested that you not publish any monitoring reports. Please identify and describe in detail aU communications between you and Dr. Camine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. v'"' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce aU documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Camine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: In your response to Intemogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that the Compliance Committee refused to share quarterly reports produced by the School Services Division, please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. A INTERROGATORY NO. 14: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that It 'Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine andHeUerregarding desegregation accomphshments." Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were 7misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD employee pertaining to the semester by semester discipline statistics referred to in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORYNO. IS: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that you did not follow through on compliance issues "in response to and at the request of and from Superintendent Camme and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised (sic) of fair and adequate remedy thereof." Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and Dr. Gamine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to (a) a request that you not follow through on comphance issues and (b) a promised remedy for a compliance issue raised by you
please also describe in detail the promised remedy, state whether you contend that the promised remedy was not provided, and if not, please identify all facts and documents which support this contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to the promised remedy. REQUEST FQR PRODUCTIQN NO. 13: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORYNO. 16: Please identify each and every LRSD student that you contend was subject to racial discrimmatio-n in the imposition of discipline during the term 8of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
for each student and/or incident of discrimination, please also describe in detail all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: In your response to Interrogatory No. 10 of Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege, "Not all black children who are disciplined are [] included in the discipline reports." Please identify and describe in detail ail facts and documents which support this allegation and identify all persons with knowledge of this allegation
please also identify each and every LRSD student that you contend was disciplined but was not included in discipline reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail each and every instance in which you contend that the Ombudsman's response to a matter referred to the Ombudsman by you failed to comply with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and for each such instance, please identify all facts and documents which support you contention and identify all persons with knowledge of the underlying incident you referred to the Ombudsman and the District's response thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please identify each and every instance in which you contend that you referred a matter to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman failed to take any action in response to your referral
and for each such instance, please identify all facts and 9documents which support you contention and identify all persons with knowledge of the underlying incident you referred to the Ombudsman and the District's response thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Do you contend that all or part of the cmrent disparity in academic achievement on standardized tests between LRSD's Afincan-American andnon- African-American students is a vestige of racial discrimination by LRSD? If so, please state how much of the current disparity you contend is a vestige of racial discrimination by LRSD, V ' identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please identify all provisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which you contend required the District to involve you in the development of programs, pohcies and procedures, identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify aU persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please describe in detail what role you contend Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ros's should have played in the development of programs, policies and procedures under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. 10REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERRQGATQRY NQ. 23: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required District staff to prepare periodic monitoring reports regarding implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan? If so, please identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify all persons with knowledge . pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Do you contend that Dr. Bonnie Lesley constructed a plan the implementation of which would result in a set of in-school racially segregated assignment programs? If so, please identify and describe in detail the plan, identify all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Do you contend that professional conflicts existed between Dr. Bonnie Lesley and any other staff member? If so, please identify and describe in detail the conflicts (including but not limited to the duration of the conflict and resolution, if any), identify all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 23: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 11 INTERROGATORYNO. 26: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required the District to maintain lower pupil teacher ratios at the former Incentive schools? If so, please identify those provisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which imposed such a requirement, identify all other facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge of your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. V, . INTERRO' GATORY NO. 27: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required the District reduce the disparity in academic achievement on standardized tests between LRSD's Afincan-American and non-African-American students? If so, please state by how much, identify those provisions ofthe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which imposed such a requirement, identify all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge of which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to tte preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan requires LRSD to establish programs, provide services or provide any kind of assistance solely for the benefit of black students? If so, please identify those provisions ofthe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which impose such a requirement, identify all facts and documents which support your contention that such a requirement exists, and identify all persons with knowledge of facts which support your contention. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do you have, or have you ever had, a written plan or any other document which sets forth the purposes and procedures for Joshua monitoring of LRSD? If so, please identify those documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and . Education Plan or any other currently effective document or Order requires or authorizes Joshua monitoring of LRSD? If so, please identily and describe in detail all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge of facts supporting your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents pertaining to the response to the preceding interrogatory. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376
202^ // BY: Christopher Helkm(#8'1083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copv of same by U.S. Mail)unless hand-dehvery indicated) on September 27,2001: Mr. John W. Walker JHand-Delivered) JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 2P0 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 RoacheU Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller F:\HOMEKFENDLEY\LRSD 2001\aes-uniafy-int-rfp-Joshua-002.wpd 14Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M SISEMAN. JR, P.A JOE D. BELL. P.A JAMES BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR,. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM HL P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A. WYCKLIFP NISBET, JR.. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL lU. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN IH. P.A MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL m. P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL WILLIAM WADDELL, JR. P- LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C. BAKER JR. P.A HARRY A LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER PA. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A DAVID D. WILSON, P.A TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-685-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. GRAF. P.A CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A TONY L. WILCOX. P.A FRAN C, HICKMAN, P.A BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOR JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN IPRAH KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP b'. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. AD. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 September 27, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fBndleyQftc.nat Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE
LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker
We have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production ofDocuments. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows
Interrogatory No. 2
Please provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3
Please provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4
Your reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2
Please identify the correspondence with Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and "other central office administrators" to which you refer. Your assertion that "[c]opies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely. >Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 Interrogatory No. 5: Neither Dr. Camine nor Mr. Babbs acknowledged that the Comphance Plan was not provided to you -until Mr. Babbs letter of August 25, 2001. In fact, Mr. Babbs' letter states. If 'You will find no revision in it comparable to the copy of the draft that was mailed to your attention prior to board submission and adoption." Do you deny receiving a draft of the Comphance Plan prior to submission to the Board? Do you deny receiving a copy of the June 10, 1999, version of the Comphance Plan on July 1, 1999? Interrogatory No. 6: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is "no." Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear tn mind that this interrogatory was not hmited to preparation of the Comphance Plan. InterrogatorvNo. 7: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is "no." Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not limited to preparation of the Interim Comphance Report. Interrogatory No. 8: You reference your objections to LRSD being granted unitary status. From what we can decipher from your objections, you refer to disparities in the areas of discipline, achievement and special education. For these three areas and any others revealed by monitoring, please state (a) when you became aware of the disparity
(b) when you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD
and (c) whether's LRSD's response to the racial disparity comphed with the Re-vised Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Re-vised Plan. As to the "notes and files" of LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 5. Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe tn detail the alleged incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. To the extent you reference correspondence with LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or pro-vide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 6. Interrogatory No. 10: As LRSD understands your response, you answer to this interrogatory is that you do not know. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Interrogatory No. 11: Please state whether's LRSD's response to each incident referred to the Ombudsman comphed with the Revised Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. Request for Production No. 8: You indicate we should refer to the files of the Ombudsman. We would hke to be sure that his file is complete by comparing it to your file. Accordingly, please identify and/or provide copies of ah correspondence between you and the Ombudsman.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 3 Interrogatory No. 12: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5 was to implement programs, pohcies and/or procedures to ensure that there is no racial discriTninatinn with regard to student discipline. The District's discipline pohcies and procedures are outlined very clearly in the Students' Rights and Responsibihties Handbooks for each grade level. Do you contend that these were inadequate
and if so, please identify ah facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 9. Interrogatory No. 13: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.1 was to strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibihties Handbook. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so
and if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 10. Interrogatory No. 14: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5.2 was to purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades. Do you contend that the District failed to do so
and if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 11. Interrogatory No. 16: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.4 requires LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so
and if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in R,equest for Production No. 13. Interrogatory No. 17: You state your position but fail to identify and describe in detail the facts and documents supporting your position
please do so and provide copies of any documents as requested in Request for Production No. 14. Please also identify the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie MitcheU, Bonnie Lesley and Dr. Leshe Gamine which you beheve supports your position. Interrogatory No. 18: As we understand your response, your answer to this interrogatory is "none. Please let us know if our understanding is not correct. tl Request for Production No. 16: Please provide copies of all documents responsive to this request.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 4 Due to the Court's deadline of November 1, 2001, we respectfully request that the above information and documents be provided on or before October 5,2001. If we have not reached some agreement by that date, we will file a motion to compel on October 8,2001. We agree to reimburse you for the cost of copying the documents requested. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall JOHN W. Walker, P.A. Attoeney At Law 1723 Beoadway Little Rock, Aeeansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 '*% J JOHN W. WAT,KF,R SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENEY 8210 Hendeeson Road Lotle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email
mchenrydz^wbeH-nec September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school distnct in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we wiE have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your "interrogatories" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the time '7 bii (LPage Two September 20, 2001 of your motion to support your motion. Accordingly, you should soon be prepared to inform me of any additional information which you have developed since March 15, 2001, when your time at bat comes. TWWilp cc
Ms. Arm Marshall Sinper^ly, fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
KDB Effective: July 16, 2001 PROCESS FOR MAKING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FOIA Purpose The specific purposes to be served by these procedures are: To ensure that the District complies with the requirements of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as amended in 2001
To ensure reasonable and timely citizen access of District records
To ensure that the privacy rights of students and staff are protected in the release of District records
and To ensure an orderly and efficient process for obtaining information from the District. Definitions Records: Records shall be interpreted as writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, or data compilations in any form, required by law to be kept, which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions. All records maintained by LRSD employees in the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records. Before records are provided for inspection or copying, the custodian of the records shall determine if the records contain information that is not . releasable under the FOIA, Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), or other applicable statutes. If the records contain information that is not releasable, it shall be the responsibility of the custodian to delete that information and make the remainder of the records available. Electronic Information
For the purpose of this administrative directive, electronic information shall be interpreted to include all data processing time required to manipulate computer or other technologically stored or generated data into a format that is transferable to the requester. Custodian of the Records: For the purpose of these regulations and the convenience of the public, the custodian of the records will be the person having administrative control of that record.I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16. 2001 continued . Process for Obtaining Information through the FOIA AV Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the .Arkansas FOIA from the LRSDs custodian of the record. The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian. To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort. The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies. In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1, The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. 3. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. 4. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. 5. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges-for expenses incurred.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16, 2001 continued If the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance. Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start ofthe next business day. If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage. In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian of the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person about whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address ofthe subject ofthe request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.uy/Zt/Ui rKi 14:52 KAA DRAFT I UU5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT administrative DIRECTIVE
EGAD Eifective:- October 1,2001 the use and DELETION OF ELECTRONIC mail With the spread of telecommunications throughout District recognizes that employees will shift information, and contact others. As the electronic work place, the the ways they share ideas, transmit staff members are connected to the global community, their use of new tools and systems brings r-.... well as opportunities. The District expeds that aTempiX^e: electronic mail and telecommunications ' well as opportunities. new responsibilities as to the performance of tasks . will learn to use tools and apply them in appropriate ways associated with their positions and assignments. use of telecommunications to explore Dracticp-? communication systems expedite the sharing of effective Purpose The specific purposes of this directive To ensure that the District. To ensure that the District: are: To ensure s electronic mail system is used appropriately
s electronic mail system works efficiently
and an orderly and efficient process for the reasonable and timely AYtrpnRniic moil J purging of extraneous mail. Inappropriate Use The following behaviors networks: are inappropriate and are not permitted on the District A. B. C. employees because messages are not entirely secure
Sending or displaying offensive messages or pictures
* . - . - ------Iu! piuLures, to any office D. E. promotion of or opposition to elections and business
or for the any ballot proposition including union Using obscene, harassing, or insultino languaqe- F. Engaging in practices that threaten the may introduce a virus^
Violating copyright laws
network (e.g., loading files thatu DRAFT UU4 G. H. I. J. Using others passwords
Trespassing in others'folders, documents, or files' Employing the network for commercial purposes
or Promoting, supporting or celebrating religion or religious institutions. Review or'Files and Communications The Districts computer network is the property and responsibility of the LRSD may review files and communications -3 maintain the systems integrity and to ri X " using the system responsibly. Users should that files stored on District servers will b- As such, network administrators transmitted through the network to that staff members are ensure ifi private. not expect .... Network administrators will sunervknr i i report inappropriate behaviors to the employee's supervisor who will take appropnate disciplinary action inappropriate behavior, violations, c. supervisor for appropriate action. Violations e-mail system and/or disciplinary action. . Any other reports of or complaints will be routed to the employees fT-iay result g toss of access to the Storing_and Deletion of Electronic Messages and Files Many employees send and receive an extremely large volume of e-mail . . -------------/iciy icjiye voiurn day. Storage o.f e-mail in the Microsoft Outlook software has every impact on the efficiency of the system If Inboxes. "Sent Items, a great negative users want to save files kept in personal folders or folders and Deleted Items," they must be appropriately stored rs in one of the other computer programs or drives. in Jo ^hat end mail left in Inboxes. "Sent Items", and/or "Deleted Items will administrators from SX7J?1 be toiX'bto""' longer will teTost tcthe the Microsoft Outlook was sent or received. Any mail or files all users ample time to clean and file October 1. 2001 to allow any e-mail that they wish to save to folders. !he T-eacXTT"T "g-up folders to save e-mail, they should refer to fUer ass Stoned ^RSD website for step-by-step directions. 11 luiLfier assistance is needed, o ea.sp Don Department. please contact the LRSD Information ServicesFriday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHei lOAV (IK2J-IVWI wtUUAM M. SUTTON. P A nYRCN M. EISEMAN. JR . P A JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JAMCS auTTRr. I*.*. PrSDERICX S. URSERY. P.a. ''SCAR . DAVIS, JR.. P.A. \MESC. CLARK, JR.. P.A. . fHOMAS P. LECGETT. P_R. JOHN OEWEY WATSON. P.x PAUL a. BENHAM III. P.X Larry w. buaks. p.a. A. WYCXJJPP NISBET. JR., P.A. James edward karris, ..x i. PHiuUr maLCOM. Ka. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A lAUa U. SAXTON. P.A J. SKEPHCRO RUSSELLHI. P.A. DONALD K. BACON. P.A WXLUAM THOMAS OAXTEa. P.A. BARRY S. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAYI.0a, P.a. jO5:pk u. HURST, JR.. ..a. l^UEAaETH ROBBEN MUKKAT, P.A. CXRJSTOPHEX HBLU:*, P.A. LAURA HENSUrr SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHaPBR. P.A. wiluaM .m. caiFFiN in, p.a. MJCHaE1.S. MOORE. . X 01 ANU S. .MACKEY, P.A. Walter m. ebel dl p.a. xaviN A. CRASS, p.x attorneys at law A LIMITED LIASILITY PARTNERSHIP www.rridaydrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL WAOOELU JK, F.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTE3L P.A. M. CaYLE CORLEY, P.x ROBERT II. OCaCK, JR.. P A. J, t-ee uhown. p.a. JAMBS C flAKER, JR.. P.x HAftav LICHT. SCOTT K TOCXER. P.A. OUY ALTON WADS. F,A PRICE C. GARDNER. KA. TONIA P. JONES. KA. DAVTO O. WILSON, P.A, LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722Q1-34S3 telephone 501-376-2011 FAX S01-37S-2147 3125 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 727C3-411 TCLEFHONE 5Oi-aos-2Qii FAX 501.S0S.2147 IEFFR.EY H. MOORI'. F A- 0AV1O M CMAl'. r.A. CARLA CUNNIIL
! SI'AINKOUR. Ka. JOHN C. FUPOLHY. JR . Ka. lONANH ELIZAaeTH CONlGLlO. X.A. IL CHRISTOFHER LAWSON, r A. CRfCORY . TAYLOR. F.A TONY L. WILCOX. I'.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. r,A. BETTY J. OUMOkY. I'.A. LYNDA M, JOHNSON. r.A,. JAMSS W. SMITW. P.A, CUFFORD W. FLUNKUTT. P.A. OANXEL L. IIEXXINCTON. F.a. MARVtN L. CHILOBRS JL COLEMAH wesTHROOIC. JIL ALLISON J. COrNWRLL SLLZN M. OWENS JASON U. HRNOREH naves a. nDweij. KJCHaELS. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSE^H K MCKAV ALKXANOILA A J^Y T. TAYLOR IFRAH Martin a. kast.n BBVaH W, duke JOSUrMG NICW0I4I ROAERT T. SMITH RYAN A. QQWMaN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T MICHEXXS ATOR Karen s. halbert SaRaH M. cotton PHIUP a. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN 3. RJCCn^S ALAN C. aaVAN SOB NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLS. ARKANSAa 72315 TELEPHONE eT0.7B2>ZB8fl FAX a7O-7a2'2Bia r<F Ci'^UNdU. a.S. CUtRX WILUAM U TERRY WTLUAM L PATTON. JK H.T. LARZaUlRC. P.A JOHN C ECT-IOLS. KA. A D. mCavU.'JTER September 12, 2001 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCH TEL 5^1-370-3323 FAX 31-a44-S341 }andlay<S|rc.n( \/ILUA ( Via FacsimUe/Mail) Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Walker
We are in receipt of your letter dated September 12,20OD We agree that our communication On this issue should be in writing. Accordingly, please provide us a written proposal for a Protective Order. We will not make any e-mails responsive to your FOIA requests to principals available for your review until we reach an agreement on a Protective Order. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb P
\H0MEU3BfDwn\Fcn<lJey\IJlSD\w]ur twpd 200lg] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 0 3 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES vy McCQfiMACK By
A ' ' 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 OCT s 2001 OFFICE OF desegregation MONITORIMG 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 Districts 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 LRSDs contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing. Joshua is directed to provide the LRSD with any documents from Joshua monitors or members ofthe 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 5 1 5 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 Joshuas 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 LRSDs 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 LRSDs 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 of LRSD 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 ofthe 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 Courts 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. 2Joshua 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 of LRSD Directive KDB. Counsel for Joshua may, as always, participate in Joshuas continuing monitoring of the LRSD. The participation of counsel for Joshua in the monitoring shall be consistent with the Courts 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 coimsel 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. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF judg: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58, AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT^^^^R'^o'strictArkansas EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 0 <1 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL RECEIVER MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OCT 5 2001 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER JAMES By:___ : RK ----X DDEEPP CCLLEERR PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court previously scheduled a hearing on Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker. In light of the correspondence received from Clay Fendley, 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 vs . contempt is denied as moot. DATED this day of October, 2001. susaH' wmeBKRWBTGHT / Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE.58 AND/OR 7^) FRCP O N BY-----SSLI----- ^A copy of Mr. Pendley's faxed letter is attached to this order. RECEIVED OCT - 9 2001 omcta IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3. 2001 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 with respect 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: (L - leller (#81083) ' h la-,, T,- /'tiOOICTl Cl^uistopher Heller ^6hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE 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) 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 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 L . Christopher Heller J<^ C. Fendley, Jr. 3 RECEIVED OCT - 9 2001 omcfcOk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 of interrogatories 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 preparedfrom 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) 376-21114------y ChfisWpEer Heller (#81083< John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy ofthe 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 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. 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. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher FTeller John C. Fendley, Jr. 3A. received OCT 15 2001 ORRCEOF FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 1 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ... .cdv WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK C.P LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE LRSDS RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 The Joshua Intervenors object to the response of the LRSD because it seeks to condition the Courts Order. The Courts Order was clear and unambiguous and should not be modified absent compelling cause which cause is stated for the record. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) By: .A- Joi Walker, Bar No. 64046 -1-4< CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE counsel or record, postage prepaid on this I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following // day of October, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Arm Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Johtiz^. Walker -1-OCi 1 2001 ucOF KSEGREGAIiON MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 1 7 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * JAMEl By:_ B W. McCORMACK, CLERK V DEPTLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECElVbiJ OCT 18 2001 OIWEOF (OTESKnONMWRIHG ORDER The Court is in receipt of Little Rock School Districts response [docket no. 3517] to this Courts Order [docket no. 3515] filed October 3, 2001, as well as Joshua Intervenors response in opposition [docket no. 3520] to LRSDs response. LRSD states in its response that it objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. jii LRSD also states that it objects to the March 15, 2001 cut-off date for the presentation of evidence. The Court notes LRSDs 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 'In 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 LRSDs 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 LRSDs 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. 1 S 5 2 115, 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 Joshuas objections to the Compliance Report and deny unitary status to LRSD, LRSD may in the future, when circumstances warrant. 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. 3410], 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.^ The Court reminds LRSD that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshuas objections to this Compliance Report. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshuas activities- Joshuas activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. It is the Compliance Report, and Joshuas 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 ^Docket no. 3410 (Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order), Paragraph No. 1. 2Report are accurate and truthful. The truthfulness and accuracy of LRSDs representations in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report could have bearing on the Courts 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. However, should the Court find compliance in some areas but a failure of compliance in others, the districts 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 courts 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 courts decree ....). THEREFORE, the Courts 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. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF JUDG. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT The 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 of race, 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 59 docket no. 3107]. 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT received PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 2 6 2001 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Joshua failed to respond to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within the time prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), failed to submit verified responses as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1) and (2), and failed to fully respond as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1). Because Joshua's responses were untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) prohibits Joshua from raising objections. It provides, "Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown." (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, Joshua should be compelled to provide full. complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) as requested in Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001, attached as Exhibit 3 to the accompanying Motion. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).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: /Christopher Heller (#81083) / C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) / 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on October Ao , 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 ol ihopher Heller ' /I n C. Jr. \J Fendley, FAHOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 200I\dcs-mol-compcl-cIarification-bri.wpd 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LRC 82 86,^gQ0yEO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL oct 2 6 MB' DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: 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 quashedPlaintiffs 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: AJhristopher Heller (#810'^3)^ ^hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by 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 JI istopher Heller n C. Fendley, Jr. F \HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 200l\des-fno(-compel-clarificatjon wpd 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 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 following 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. GENEIUKL 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. association, 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 face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise
(D) "document z > EXHIBIT IShall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, pnnted or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplieate copies and transcnpts thereof, now or al 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 term "control" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another thereof. person or a public or private entity having actual possession If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with or custody. possession If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was. but 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 each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or originated, the identity of or delivered, the identity of such 2The 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. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative 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 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitonng reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERRQGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD dunng 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. 4interrogatory no. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY 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 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and descnbe in detail all communications 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 Intenm Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial disparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) (b) (c) When you became aware of the disparity
When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD
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 raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5request for production no. 5: Please produce all documents to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. pertaining interrogatory 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) (b) (c) When you became aware of the incident
When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD
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 ofthe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. INTERROGATORYNO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions are of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 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 contention? support that REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 6INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman
and separately for each such incident, please state: (a) (b) When you became aware of the incident
When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman
(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. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. 7interrogatory NO, 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST EOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the "Program Evaluation Agenda" and/or the "Assessment Plan" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention
(b) (c) state when you determined that they did not comply
when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply
and, 8(d) 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. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. fNTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37(UO+I-------. BT Christopher Heller 1083j John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 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 on August 9, 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 I 1800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1 895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ^Christopher Heller F HOME'FES'DLEY'LRSD 2CWJ\(ks-uniian in( ffpJoshua00l ''pd 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO.4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE lOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOSHUAS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the prepar ation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intei-venors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is aware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed mortitoring for you dming the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons performed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1- I m EXHIBIT zJoy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors counsel, in response to and at the request of Supeiintendent Les Camine and District counsel Chris Heller, in an effort to be cooperative with them did not publish any monitoiing reports of the concerns which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written communications from Heller, Camine and Walker - Comi Exhibits 558 and 566. fNTERRQGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD & term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4
Please see Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agieement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Camine, Distiict counsel Chirs Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that contain correspondence and other documentation fiom Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2-Superintendent Camine and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementary School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segr egation of boys from gir ls as a punitive measrrre
double funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools
the proposed closing of Mitchell Elementary school
the closing of Ish School rmder the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish Instructional Resource Center
Pulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate treatment of Afiican American students and staff, disparate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial slurs and r acial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and discriminatory learning environment
Hall High School involving discriminatory learning environment. dispar ate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement
Cloverdale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment, dispar ate discipline and lack of academic achievement
the creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson
discriminatory practices mvolvmg the removal of the principal at J. A. Fan High School
the promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatory conduct towar d Afiican American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)
Mabelvale Middle School involving discr iminatory learning envirorrment, disparate discipline and lack academic achievement
Dunbar Middle School involving disparate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and determination of discipline decisions. assault of student by staff member, use of racial slru s by staff and lack of academic -3- achievement
Forest Heights Middle School involving disparate discipline, disciiminatory discipline practices
Wakefield Elementary involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminatoiy learning environment
Forest Park Elementary involving discriminatoiy learning environment, discriminatory practices regarding the participation in field tiip activities, racial comments by members of the PT A
Meadowcliff Elementary involving dispar ate discipline
Western HiUs Elementary involving retaliatory treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of lEPs and education of African American students
Rockefeller Elementary involving disparate discipline of students and staff
Horace Mann involving discriminatory grading practices. discriminatory discipline nrles established at the school level, dispar ate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member
Central High School involving discriminatory practices in student participation in extracrmicular activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock court, student council, disparate discipline practices. one race AP classes and favoring white students hr these classes, lack of academic achievement and favoring white students in awards and activities
Parkview involving discriminatory practices in coimseling services, dispar ate discipline, discrinrinatory practices in student participation hr extracrrrricular activities (band and choir). discriminatory teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement
McClellan involving imequal facilities, staff, learning evtiorrment, resorrrces, and staff use of racial epitaphs
several incidents of discriminatory assignment practices
numerous incidents of the Districts failm e to properly implement lEPs of African American students
and Safety -4-and Secmity Director Bobby Jones staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation commimicated by you to LRSD during the teim of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2: Refer to response given in Inteirogatory Answer No. 4. Documents are located in files entitled John W. Walker in the offices of Junious Babbs, Supeiintendent Cainine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Wasliington. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Court Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from Disbict officials. Superintendent Cainine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to counsel for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Com! Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbss letter of August 31, 2001, Coml Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs -5-Compliance Plan dated Jxme 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6
There were no communications between the parties regarding the format or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. District officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to commimications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPONSE NO. 3: Refer to response given in Inteirogatoiy Answer No. 6. ENTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to tlie format or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. ANSWER NO. 7: There were no communications between the parties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed on Maich 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. RESPONSE NO. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6-disparities revealed by youi' monitoring during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became awaie of the disparity
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Desegi egation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 8: Please refer to the Joshuas Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitaiy Status filed herein. Also see Interrogatory Response No. 4. Distiict officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to shai e the quailerly reports which were produced by the School Services division of the Distiict. These reports were indicative of the racial disparities that remained present in the Distiict. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Cainine, District counsel etuis Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshuas coimsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine and Heller regarding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the Distiict did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD -7-Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Supeiintendent Camine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshuas right to contest in a vigorous manner the Districts release from comt jurisdiction after the Districts report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number of times Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding Inteirogatoiy regaiding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5: Refer to response given m Interrogatory Answer No. 8. Also see Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occmred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such mcident, please state: (a) When you became awar e of the incident
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the mcident complied with the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pur suant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8-ANSWER NO. 9
Joshua received notice of numerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory No. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Superintendent Camine with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Coml Exhibit 567. There were munerous racial incidents during this period including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fair High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Marm, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Carver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementary schools. Many of these cases were referred to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6
See the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Com! Exhibits 567, 568 and attached docirments. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 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? -9-ANSWER NO. 10
LRSD did not adopt specific compliance standards for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standar d at pailiculai' schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSDs failure in this regard diminishes Joshuas ability to segiegate instances of racial dispaiity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline reports. Fuilheimore, it is our opinion that when African American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quarterly reports which confinn the continued disparity were withheld by Districts officials. REQLIEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding mtenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in Intenogatory No. 10. rNTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman
and separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became awar e of the incident
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman
(c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegr egation 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 a Education Plan. -10-ANSWER NO. 11
Joshua handled a number of the cases mvolvmg student discipline during this period for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman, James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based mistreatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were referred to the Districts Ombudsman: 1) Millard Russey at Forest Heights Middle School
2) Alex ONeal at Forest Heights Middle School
3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School
4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School
5) Earnest Rump at Southwest Middle School
6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodriquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School
8) Marcus Walker at Horace Maim Middle School
9) Maim Middle Schools inles regarding participation in extracurricular activities which are driven by citizenship grades
10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student. Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher
11) Christopher Murray at Cloverdale Middle School
12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary
13) Eivvin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary
-11-14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann
15) Marcus Hemy at Pulaski Heights Middle
16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School
17) Cedric Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School
19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementary
20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith
21) Felicia Duhail at Western Hills Elementary
22) Brian Gray at Horace Maim
23) April Hayes at Paikview
24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementary
25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle
26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School
27) Peel at Forest Heights
28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School
29) Maicus Walker at Horace Mann
30) ClC program implementation (suspensions expunged for white students but not for black students who pailicipated in this program)
and 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. RefeiTals were made dming these communications. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 12: The program, policies and procedmes identified in the Compliance Plan and the Mai ch 2000 and 2001 reports ai e in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regard to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshuas Response in Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding inteiTOgatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 9: See Iiitenogatoiy No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Comt Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in InteiTogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST EOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Interrogatory No. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Comi Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support youi' objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Court to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents in the preceding inteiTogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 11: Same as InteiTOgatory No. 14. -14-INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 15: Refer to Couil Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001. (Testimony regai ding his lack of sufficient resources and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 12: Please produce all documents in the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Intenogatoiy No. 15. fNTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support youi' objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 16: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Coml to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that these cases aie referred to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents. (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District rephed indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15-preceding intenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in Intenogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the Program Evaluation Agenda and/or the Assessment Plan set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSDs obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention
(b) state when you detennined that they did not comply
(c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply
and. (d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2.7.1 was to reach all academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshuas ability to respond to this intenogatoiy is hindered by the Districts failure to set forth one clear list of all of the progr ams implemented to comply with Section 2.7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cturiculrrm at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAJPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Jrmious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, -16-Bonnie Lesley and Superintendent Camine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding inteiTOgatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See tr anscript of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegr egation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: District officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve counsel for Joshua in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Com! Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsels complaints regarding non involvement in the development of programs, policies and procedrrres. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary com se of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertauring to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following docrrments and notices were sent by the -17-Distiict without request: Distiict officials provided Boaid policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quailerly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Biracial Committee meetings. Notices regaiding Charter School Committee and agenda. Joshua counsel and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a part of our ongoing monitoiing activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom- invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see Court Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua ftulher reserves the right to supplement the answers provided herein. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501)374-4187 By: ax) j / / 'J alker, AR Bar No. 64046 -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailei following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this A/ day of-* lostage prepaid to the ^t
2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 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. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. SammyeL. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 in W. Walker 4 -19- Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (I922-19P4) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMBS M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Hl. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAJTR. P A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN 111. P A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.CDm 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A, JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P A. TONY L. WILCOX, P A. FRAN C HICKMAN. P A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT, P A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN C. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 (ndleyQftc.ntl September 27, 2001 Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: We have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Intenogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows: Interrogatory No. 2: Please provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3: Please provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4: Your reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2: Please identify the correspondence with Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and "other central office administrators" to which you refer. Your assertion that "[c]opies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely. (D EXHIBIT $ I z 1Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 Interrogatory No, 5: Ne
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.