SD Education Report
Education and the
Culture Wars Blog
San Diego
Education Report
Education Reform
Larkins case
Site Map
Case Timeline
092704 Nevitt statements
Main Timeline
Motivations CP teachers
Case Summary
2003 Stutz invoices
2002 SDCOE payments
to Daniel Shinoff
2003 part 2 Stutz invoices
Public Records Requests
SDCOE Crosier denial
Payments to Shinoff
Maura Larkins
Deposition of
Maura Larkins

Richard Werlin
changed the record
pages 1-15

pages 15-25

pages 25-35

pages 35-48

pages 48-60

Pages 60--68

Judge Ahler OAH
page 89-91

Is Shinoff or Mark
Bresee to blame?
pages 91-94

pages 95-105

pages 105-111

pages 112-123

pages 124-138

pages 138 -

Errata and signature
Summary Judgment
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
defamation lawsuit against
Maura Larkins
for statements on this website
Testimony on this page:
Deposition of Maura Larkins
by Stutz law firm
June 16, 2008

Pages 60--68
8 Q. I am trying to get to some of the things
9 that I want to know without getting into too much
10 detail. I guess what I am trying to find out is, the
11 conversation you overheard and then walked in on with
12 Robin Donlan referring to her brother who was a
13 deputy, is that the most direct evidence that you have
14 that she was the one who obtained the police report?
15 A. No. The principal in her deposition, her
16 name is Gretchen Donndelinger.
17 Do you want me to spell that?
18 Q. Is it -- well, why don't you spell it for
19 us.
20 A. D-o-n-n-d-e-l-i-n-g-e-r. She said that
21 Robin Donlan had come to her and said that -- talked
22 to her about something to do with Donlan's brother,
23 who was a law enforcement officer, and me. That is on
24 my Web site, that little thing that Donndelinger said,
25 her testimony about that.
1 Q. That is the most direct evidence that you
2 have?
3 A. Well, I also deposed the sheriff of
4 Santa Barbara, and he admitted under oath that the
5 declaration that he had signed, not true. The
6 declaration he had signed said that there was no --
7 that Carlson had never searched for my records. But
8 it turned out that --
9 Q. Carlson is the brother of Donna?
10 A. Yes, um-hmm.
11 Q. And Carlson was a deputy up in
12 Santa Barbara?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You did a deposition of the sheriff up there
15 to determine if Carlson had done a search?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Using whatever was available to the
18 sheriff's office to get -- basically to do a criminal
19 background search on you?
20 A. He -- yeah, yeah.
21 Q. Have we covered all of the direct evidence
22 you have that establishes that Robin Donlan was the
23 one who obtained the records?
24 A. I doubt it. Nothing is coming to my mind
25 right now. But I put together the true story in this
1 case by considering a huge amount of evidence. I
2 could not say with confidence that I have told you all
3 the direct evidence.
4 Q. Now, as far as the litigation that ensued,
5 there was the hearing with the Office of
6 Administrative Hearings regarding your termination?
7 A. Um-hmm.
8 Q. There was your lawsuit against your lawyer?
9 A. Um-hmm.
10 Q. Schulman?
11 A. Um-hmm.
12 Q. Is that a "yes"?
13 A. Yes. I'm sorry.
14 Q. Was the previous "um-hmm" also a "yes"?
15 A. That, it was "yes."
16 Q. Then there is also a lawsuit against
17 Robin Donlan, true?
18 A. Yes. We have talked about -- you have just
19 mentioned three different cases, right?
20 Q. Right.
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. Obviously, we have this litigation going on
23 right now. Is there any other litigation that I --
24 that we did not list that is related in any way to
25 your arrest, your termination?
1 A. That is a good question. Let me see. The
2 suit against Donlan, I am going to call that kind of a
3 Chula Vista Elementary School District and Donlan
4 suit, okay, that involved Stutz, OAH, the suit against
5 Schulman -- I filed a case against CTA and Does that
6 was combined with the CDE/Donlan case.
7 Q. Who is the CTA?
8 A. California Teachers Association.
9 Q. Why did you sue the California Teachers
10 Association?
11 A. This was one case in which school attorneys
12 and union attorneys were working hand in hand. It was
13 foolish on both the part of the union and the district
14 to try to cover up instead of just apologizing.
15 Q. No, no. I wanted to know why you sued the
16 California Teachers Association. What did you allege
17 they had done wrong?
18 A. Well, basically, starting out with
19 committing the same misdemeanor. The district could
20 not have done it without them. They allowed the
21 district to violate the law, violate the Ed-code,
22 violate the contract. They were very much involved in
23 helping to cover up this silly little misdemeanor that
24 never would have caused any problems with the
25 district.
1 Q. While we are on the "silly little
2 misdemeanor," give me the labor code section again
3 that you think was violated.
4 A. I think it is 743.2.
5 Q. Now, after you were released from having
6 been put in jail with respect to this alleged
7 trespass, did you ever speak to a district attorney?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you ever prosecuted for any crime?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you know why or why not?
12 A. I think they were embarrassed about the
13 whole thing. In fact, shortly after that, the police
14 made a really -- it was a problem for the police from
15 the start.
16 The guy who was in charge did not want me to
17 be arrested in the first place. The arresting
18 officer, her name was Dawn Wolfe, she -- see, my
19 ex-sister-in-law is not stupid. She is a very good
20 actress. She is a very smart woman and a very good
21 actress, even though she has these problems.
22 She just convinced this woman that she was a
23 victim, not that she was trying to help my brother,
24 you know, take over the estate, but she was just this
25 innocent victim. She lied to her about how I had
1 offered to give her, my ex-sister-in-law, $2,000 of my
2 own money, which is something that I have done
3 frequently to help people. I am quite generous.
4 I just wanted to get her out of there
5 because we could have lost -- it was my fiduciary duty
6 to make sure that there were not drug dealers dealing
7 in the apartment. I could not figure out why she was
8 not accepting my offer. It made no sense.
9 Q. What was your offer?
10 A. To give here $2,000 to move out. Because I
11 said she is the mother of my niece. I did not want to
12 evict her onto the street. I wanted to set her up in
13 the new place. I actually thought that if she was in
14 a place where she did not have a relationship with the
15 landlord, she would probably behave better too.
16 Q. What I want to know is, what do you know
17 about why or why not you were not prosecuted?
18 In other words, did you have conversations
19 with the district attorney? Did you get some type of
20 a letter from the police department saying anything?
21 Has anyone made any direct statements to you about why
22 the district attorney chose not to prosecute that
23 case?
24 A. Well, as I said before -- no, I didn't talk
25 to the district attorney. Actually, it would have
1 been the City attorney.
2 Q. Has anyone made any direct statements to you
3 about why or why not you were not prosecuted?
4 A. No, no.
5 Q. That's all I needed to know. When was
6 the -- of the litigation that we have covered here,
7 when was the last to terminate, not counting this
8 action that brings us here today?
9 A. It would have been the one involving your
10 law firm and CVESD and Donlan.
11 Q. When did that action terminate?
12 A. Early in 2005.
13 Q. That is the one that Judge Styn threw out?
14 A. No. Styn was in Schulman. This was
15 Judge Nevitt.
16 Q. Do you recall what Judge Nevitt's basis was
17 for dismissing your lawsuit against CVESD and Donlan?
18 A. Yes. It was because of the deposition,
19 because I had to leave my deposition -- Stutz was
20 extremely abusive. You should look at that one, that
21 Kelly Angell deposition. The first one I had to leave
22 because I had appointments. They knew that before
23 they even asked the judge to choose that date, that I
24 had appointments on that date.
25 The second one I left because they were
1 being just extremely abusive. They would not even let
2 me talk to make statements as the representative of
3 the witness.
4 The truth is, I think Judge Nevitt did a
5 good job on that case. The case was open for three
6 and a half years. You know, he obviously was
7 protecting the school district. He granted all their
8 requests for protective orders, all their requests for
9 continuances.
10 I think it was that declaration by the
11 sheriffs, the false declaration, the one that he
12 admitted was not true. I think when Nevitt saw that
13 it was in part of a motion for summary judgment. I
14 think that he thought, "Oh, well, that settles it,"
15 you know, "she is wrong," you know. There is no link.
16 I never had the chance to show that sheriff's
17 representative admitted that the declaration was not
18 true.
19 So I think that was his motive for doing it.
20 Because he really should not have done it. I did not
21 even have enough time to ask for a protective order.
22 It was 22 days after the deposition that I
23 walked out of that I was -- they were granted, your
24 law firm was granted terminating sanctions.
25 Q. It was in connection with your leaving that
1 deposition?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. At the time that the terminating sanctions
4 were granted, there was a motion for summary judgment
5 pending?
6 A. Yes. All the parties asked to have it
7 withdrawn, because they did not want me to have a
8 chance, I would imagine. This is what I imagine.
9 They did not want to have a chance to tell the judge
10 that they had filed a false declaration, a perjury
11 declaration.
12 Q. Do you think that anyone connected with the
13 Stutz firm improperly influenced Judge Nevitt to
14 protect the district?
15 A. No. I think that Judge Nevitt is one of the
16 few people with integrity involved in this whole
17 thing.
18 Q. Do you believe that anyone connected with
19 the Stutz firm improperly influenced Judge Styn?
20 A. No, no. I think Judge Styn just does not
21 like in pro pers. Nevitt was more tolerant of an in
22 pro per plaintiff.