Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
defamation lawsuit against
Maura Larkins
for statements on this website
Testimony on this page:
Deposition of Maura Larkins
by Ljubisa Kostic
June 16, 2008

Pages 80 to 89

17 BY MR. KOSTIC
18 Q. Ms. Larkins, you remember all the
19 admonitions I gave you this morning?
20 A. Um-hmm.
21 Q. Is that a "yes"?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you continue to give me your most
24 complete and accurate testimony this afternoon?
25 A. Yes, I can. I had a good lunch.
SCHULER COURT REPORTING - 858.518.1619
81
1 Q. Good. You mentioned before lunch the disks
2 that you have been keeping track of your Web site
3 with --
4 A. Um-hmm.
5 Q. -- since the time that this lawsuit was
6 initiated.
7 Are those disks dated so we can tell when
8 each file was created?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What kinds of disks are you using; CDs,
11 floppy disks?
12 A. CDs.
13 Q. If I were to request an opportunity to
14 inspect those CDs, you would have no trouble locating
15 them and producing them upon request?
16 A. No trouble at all.
17 Q. Now, you mentioned that at some point you
18 thought your Web site was hacked into?
19 A. Um-hmm.
20 Q. Is that a "yes"?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that
23 Stutz, Artiano or anyone associated with our firm
24 hacked into your Web site?
25 A. Actually, the evidence points more toward
SCHULER COURT REPORTING - 858.518.1619
82
1 CTA.
2 Q. What evidence is there -- is there any
3 evidence that would suggest to you that anyone from
4 Stutz, Artiano hacked into your Web site?
5 A. No. I actually don't think Stutz hacked my
6 Web site. I suspect CTA had something to do with it.
7 Q. As succinctly as you can, can you tell me
8 why you think the CTA hacked into your Web site?
9 A. Because somebody put a black box over a page
10 of a deposition transcript that involved the CTA
11 lawyer and me speaking. Why would Stutz have any
12 interest in doing that? Obviously, CTA is the only
13 one that would have any interest in doing that.
14 Q. Did you check with Yahoo? I know sometimes
15 if someone feels there is defamatory or other
16 inappropriate material on a Web site, they can ask
17 Yahoo or Google, whoever is maintaining the Web page,
18 to take it offline. Sometimes they will go in and do
19 these kinds of things.
20 Did you check with Yahoo to see if maybe
21 Yahoo was involved?
22 A. I am interested in what you are saying, that
23 people can do that. Yes, I did check with Yahoo.
24 They assured me that if they had any problems they
25 would just take it offline. They assured me that they
SCHULER COURT REPORTING - 858.518.1619
83
1 would not do that.
2 Q. Did Yahoo assure you that they were not in
3 any way involved in any of the changes that you
4 thought were the result of someone hacking in?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. We are up and running. So in a little bit
7 we are going to get into your Web site.
8 A. That is so interesting what you said, that
9 sometimes people do ask Yahoo. You seem to think that
10 a black box might be an indication of that?
11 Q. Well, again, I am not here to testify or
12 educate you in any way. But I don't know that. I
13 don't know how Yahoo would go about it. I have never
14 corresponded with Yahoo about that.
15 My understanding is, there is some way by
16 which one could complain about content, and there is
17 something Yahoo can do. What they do, I don't know,
18 so...
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Okay. Now, this morning you indicated that
21 the thing that you wanted to -- the reason you started
22 the San Diego Education Report is because you wanted
23 to communicate with the public about some things that
24 were of concern to you.
25 A. Of concern to the public.
SCHULER COURT REPORTING - 858.518.1619
84
1 Q. Okay. What specific things are of concern
2 to the public that you are attempting to communicate
3 on your Web site?
4 A. The most important thing is that education
5 is being harmed by officials and lawyers who use
6 illegal tactics to harm good employees and protect bad
7 employees to cover up crimes and -- without regard to
8 the well-being of children.
9 Q. How would you suggest that lawyers go about
10 deciding which teachers are good for children and
11 which ones are not good for children?
12 A. I don't think they care in the least bit
13 which teachers are good for children.
14 Q. Right. But your concern is that lawyers are
15 corrupt and they are helping the bad teachers and they
16 are harming the good ones. That is what you just
17 said.
18 What I want to know is, how does a lawyer go
19 about determining which teachers are good for children
20 and which are bad ones, other than asking you for your
21 opinion?
22 A. Okay. Now, that is interesting that you
23 mentioned other than asking me for my opinion.
24 Q. Because I don't want you to talk about that.
25 I want you to tell me what you think lawyers should do
SCHULER COURT REPORTING - 858.518.1619
85
1 to determine which teachers are fit to teach our
2 children.
3 A. Did you honestly think that I was going to
4 say that they should ask me for my opinion? Or was it
5 just a snide comment?
6 Q. We only have so much time. So, please, if
7 you could answer my question; which is, what do you
8 think lawyers should do?
9 A. What should lawyers do? Okay. I would
10 suggest that if you want to save time, that you not
11 add snide remarks.
12 Q. Please, can you answer my question. What
13 specifically should lawyers do to determine which
14 teachers are good ones and which ones are bad ones?
15 A. That is not the lawyer's job. I never said
16 that lawyers should do that.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you were terminated after a
18 decision was rendered by the Office of Administrative
19 Hearings; is that true?
20 A. Yes, yeah.
21 Q. Did the Stutz firm represent any party in
22 that administrative hearing that led to the decision
23 to terminate you?
24 A. No. That was Parham & Rajcic.
25 Q. Now, we talked this morning about the
SCHULER COURT REPORTING - 858.518.1619
86
1 several legal actions that are related to your
2 termination and some other things that we talked
3 about.
4 My understanding is, is that the Stutz firm
5 defended some or all of the defendants in your action
6 against the school district and Robin Donlan; is that
7 true?
8 A. Yes. I need to add something to my
9 responses to a couple of questions. You asked me what
10 should lawyers do, and I did not get a chance to
11 answer it.
12 Q. Actually, you did. You told me it is not
13 the lawyer's job. I don't want to give you an
14 opportunity to tell me more.
15 A. No --
16 Q. I am happy with your response -- and is not
17 for you to ask to add more. If you want to do that at
18 the end of the deposition as though you had a lawyer
19 here to ask you questions, I am fine with that. But I
20 want to keep going with my questions.
21 A. Mr. Kostic, you are trying to substitute a
22 different question. You are talking about the
23 question, "How should lawyers decide who is a good
24 teacher and who is a bad teacher."
25 Q. Right.
SCHULER COURT REPORTING - 858.518.1619
87
1 A. I never got a chance to answer the question,
2 "What should lawyers do?" They should follow the law,
3 Mr. Kostic.
4 Q. All right. Who, in your opinion, should --
5 A. Excuse me, Mr. Kostic. I need to add some
6 more because you have been cutting me off. When you
7 were asking if -- who was representing the district
8 during the Office of Administrative Hearings' case, it
9 should be noted that the district was following the
10 instructions of Daniel Shinoff during that time. It
11 is quite certain that he is the one who told them to
12 fire me.
13 Also, Daniel Shinoff had all the documents
14 in the case and when Parham & Rajcic wanted to produce
15 the documents, they had to ask for Daniel Shinoff to
16 turn them off. I don't know if he turned all the
17 documents in a set of Bates stamp documents, that had
18 87 pages and started with 01, to Mark Bresee, but they
19 were not all produced.
20 So I believe Daniel Shinoff may have been
21 involved in keeping documents away from Mark Bresee
22 and the Office of Administrative Hearings. So he was
23 very much involved.
24 Also, Stutz used that Office of
25 Administrative Hearings' decision in its case. So


88
1 Stutz was very much involved in creating and utilizing
2 that decision.
3 Q. Have you said everything that you need to
4 say?
5 A. No. There was one other thing. When you
6 asked me why I was not prosecuted for being in my
7 father's apartment.
8 Q. That was this morning?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did I cut you off when you provided me
11 whatever information you provided me this morning?
12 A. Yes. I had actually written something down
13 that I wanted to say, and I did not have a chance to
14 say it.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. The police actually came back and arrested
17 Cathy Nelson's boyfriend. I think they decided that
18 they had arrested the wrong person. He was in jail
19 for many months after that.
20 Q. Have you now said everything you need to say
21 with respect to prior questions in this deposition?
22 A. Well, okay, if you want to make sure we get
23 this, there is one more thing I want to say about
24 that -- no, I will save that for -- maybe just write
25 it down or something. I don't need to say it, yeah.



89
1 Q. I am concerned that you have accused me of
2 not allowing you to respond fully. I want to be sure
3 that there is nothing further you want to say about
4 any of the questions I have asked so far.
5 A. Let me just say this; when we were talking
6 about whether or not the Office of Administrative
7 Hearings' decision was reasonable, it should be noted
8 that at one point while the court reporter was still
9 on duty and reporting, the judge got up, walked into a
10 little room behind the witness stand, summoned the
11 other two panelists to come, and started talking to
12 them off record -- well, outside of the court
13 reporter's hearing -- and giving them -- telling him
14 that they were to disregard everything -- well, they
15 should disregard what I had just testified about
16 Linda Watson.
17 The reason I could hear them is because I
18 was on the witness stand, and I was just a few feet
19 away. Then when he noticed that I was there
20 listening, he closed the door. They remained in there
21 for about 10 minutes while everyone else in the room
22 was just sitting and waiting. That is how reasonable
23 that hearing was.
24 Q. Is it your understanding that panelists at
25 the Office of Administrative Hearings are not entitled
BLOGS
SD Education Report
BLOG
Education and the
Culture Wars Blog
San Diego
Education Report
Education Reform
Home
Site Map
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
v. CVESD
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 138-157

pages 157-175

pages 175-203

pages 203-222


Errata and signature
page
Larkins case
summary
Case Timeline
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

pages 68-73

Lozano Smith order/
Shinoff tactics
pages 73-80

pages 80-89
Summary Judgment