Discovery abuses by Stutz and CTA

Who can blame them?  The court
lets them get away with it.
) Case No.         GIC 781970
) Judge:      Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept:                 64
) Hearing date: March 17, 2004 8:15 AM
)
)
)
) PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
) IN SUPPORT OF
) EX PARTE APPLICATION
) FOR
) PROTECTIVE ORDER
) AGAINST THE TAKING OF
) DISCOVERY BY
) DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)  COMPLAINT FILED: 1/24/2002
)  TRIAL DATE: Oct 22,2004
)
A large amount of discovery was produced by Maura
Larkins while CVESD lawyers at Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff &
Holtz, and Deborah Garvin, and CTA lawyers Beverly
Tucker and Michael Hersh covered up the truth
Comes now Plaintiff and offers this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of her
ex parte application for a Protective Order from Discovery until Plaintiff has been able to
take ONE COMPLETE DEPOSITION from Virginia Boyd.


OVERVIEW

The Court’s decisions in this case have been one-sided regarding discovery.  The
Court has granted every protective order requested by Defendants, and has allowed
Defendants access to Plaintiff’s medical records.  
The discovery process has become
extremely unbalanced, with a tremendous amount of discovery taken by
Defendants, and almost none taken by Plaintiff.

On November 25, 2002, the Court granted a protective order against depositions in this
case in order to shield taxpayers’ money (specifically, the funds of Chula Vista Elementary
School District) from excessive expenses.  
However, the school district is no longer
involved in this case.  Since there is no longer any public entity liable for any
damages in this case, there is no longer any cause for allowing Defendants to
continue their abusive manipulation of the discovery process.

After waiting patiently for over two years, Plaintiff asks ONLY for ONE deposition:
the deposition noticed for Monday, March 22, 2004, of Virginia Boyd,
President of
Chula Vista Elementary Education Association, including follow-up questions and, if
necessary, motions to compel testimony or produce documents requested in the notice.

SETTLEMENT IMPOSSIBLE

It appears that progress in this case is impossible because Defendants do not believe they
will ever have to submit to discovery.  Defendants have been protected from discovery long
enough.  After two years of successful efforts by Defendants to hide the truth, Plaintiff
believes it is time to begin taking discovery from Defendants.  

HISTORY OF DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE:


I. September 23, 2002                



II.  November 25, 2002       



III. December 2002                



IV.  January 22, 2003               



V.  June 13, 2004               


VI. July 11, 2003                








During those two months, nine days, Kelly Angell kept quiet about the fact that she illegally
possessed the records, and studied them to such an extent that when she was forced to
give them up, she had to admit that she had made so many notations in them that they
could not be given to Plaintiff because they contained Kelly Angell’s work product.  Ms.
Angell gave the records to Kaiser on condition that Kaiser destroy them.


VII. January 28, 2004             



VIII. February 26, 2004        




IX. March 1, 2004              


X. March 4, 2004                



XI. March 9, 2004               








XII. March 9, 2004                



XIII. March 10, 2004                



XIV. March 12, 2004                
Plaintiff served responses to 100 Special Interrogatories,
and produced hundreds of Documents


The Court granted Defendants a protective order against   
depositions.


Plaintiff served responses to 14 supplemental special
interrogatories.


The Court granted Defendants access to
one year of Plaintiff’s
medical records.  


The Court granted Defendants a protective order against
written discovery.

Stutz attorney Kelly Angell illegally obtained over 20 years
of plaintiff's medical records.  Compex Attorney Service
illegally kept Plaintiff in the dark regarding requests, which
contained NO limitations as to dates, by Kelly Angell for
Plaintiff’s medical records.  Plaintiff learned that her
records had been delivered on May 2, 2003 to Kelly Angell,
but Plaintiff did not receive the copies until over two
months later.  
The numbers:
[CTA] Association Defendants filed a Motion to Compel answers to
Special Interrogatories.


Daniel Shinoff issued a subpoena for
police records,
which are not relevant to his clients’ case, in
the name of Chula Vista Elementary School District,
which is not even a party in this case.

Plaintiff served responses to 15 Special Interrogatories.


Defendants demanded supplemental answers to 11 Interrogatories.



Plaintiff offered to pay TRIPLE the amount of sanctions requested
by Association Defendants when Virginia Boyd’s March 22, 2004
deposition is complete. Association Defendants accepted the offer,
but refused to take the request for sanctions off calendar.  TRIPLE
sanctions were not enough for CTA; they  wanted (and got)
QUADRUPLE sanctions.  Happily, the Court did not allow oral
arguments, saving Plaintiff $6,000.


Defendants propounded 32 more Special Interrogatories.



Defendants propounded 27 Requests for Admission.



The Court awarded sanctions to Defendants [!!??]
Plaintiff asks the court to act to bring about equity between Plaintiff and Defendants
regarding the taking of discovery.

DEFENDANTS’ ABUSE OF DISCOVERY

Plaintiff is inundated with requests for discovery. The avalanche of useless discovery
Defendants are currently propounding to Plaintiff serves only to delay progress in this
case.  Defendants are trying to keep Plaintiff so busy answering questions that she will not
have any time to propound discovery herself.   Defendants are now, and have been for the
past two years, using discovery to burden and harass Plaintiff.

Kelly Angell stated succinctly well over a year ago, on December 31, 2002, regarding
Special Interrogatories, “…I JUST CAN’T ANSWER THEM.  I CAN’T ANSWER THEM AND
PROTECT MY CLIENT.” (Discovery conference, page 3 lines 7 through 9, Exhibit 1).  Ms.
Angell has repeated this statement many times.  

Defendants have made it clear that they have no intention of allowing Plaintiff to take
discovery.   They won’t settle this case until they are forced to submit to discovery.

DATED: March 15, 2004                  
                                                                     

                                           Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in Pro Per
Discovery produced by Maura Larkins:
Special Interrogatories
answered:                   


Documents produced:                                    
        
March 24, 2004
Deborah K. Garvin
McCormick & Mitchell                        by FAX only to: 619 235 9432

Dear Ms. Garvin:

You flatter Kelly Angell when you characterize her recent mailing to me as a “response to
special interrogatories, set one.”  I served that interrogatory on Ms. Donlan on July 19, 2003!  
The response is purely a sham, of absolutely no legal significance.   I dismissed Ms. Donlan
from the case shortly after I served the interrogatory.  (Later I re-filed the cause of action.)

Obviously, given the fact that I served a complaint on him, I was able to find out Mr. Carlson’s
address by another means.  Just as obviously, I have no need of his phone number since he is
represented by counsel.  

Kelly Angell’s total number of responses to special interrogatories still stands at ZERO.

It makes one suspect that Ms. Angell’s clients have something to hide, doesn’t it?   I consider it
to be scandalous that lawyers representing a public entity have so little respect for the law.  I
think that Bob Gallagher left that law firm, and Sidney (Sydney?) Stutz ended his “of counsel”
status with the firm, at a very good time.  (I just went to the firm website to see how to spell Mr.
Stutz’s first name, and discovered that Mr. Stutz’s first name is nowhere to be found on any
part of the site!)  I have come to believe that Misters Stutz and Gallagher have, and have had,
a different approach to the practice of law than that of their erstwhile partners.

Please call any time you have a question.

Yours truly,


Maura Larkins
Maura Larkins
Plaintiff in pro per









MAURA LARKINS,     
                    
Plaintiff,                                                        
                                             
vs.             
                      
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL             
DISTRICT, a California public entity,                     
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
a California labor organization                                
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION         
ASSOCIATION,
a California labor organization,   
VIRGINIA BOYD,                                                   
TIM O’NEILL                                                         
ROBIN COLLS,                                                    
MICHAEL J. CARLSON                                       
LINDA WATSON                                                  
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,   

Defendants.                                                

                                                
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
School Stories
Free Speech
Team Success
Peters v. Guajome
Park Academy
Ethics in gov't
Defamation Suit
Cheryl Cox Games
Free Speech
Success
Retaliation
School Boards
Long Beach
Del Mar USD
Bonsall USD
Coverups
Conflicts of interest
Federal Judges
College presidents
Highest paid
Cox goes to jail
SIAtech
CDE Charter Schools
Gov't eavesdropping
Vista Unified
School Districts
Typical abuse by teachers
ADD at Olympics
African Am Ed
Bullies in Schools
Fixing Education
Peters case in Vista
Schools and violence
Fred Kamper case
Kids bullying kids:
Jeremiah Lasater case
Charter Schools
Poway Unified SD
Lawsuits
Brown Act Violations
Vista Unified
School District
VUSD v. BJ Freeman
Shinoff Bully Booklet
Public Records
Bullies are popular
Covering Up
Dominican abuse
Lawyers
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
Stutz' First Amended
Complaint
Elizabeth Schulman
appeal
Elizabeth Schulman and
Larkins case
Vista Unified
CVESD Trustee Districts
Peters v. Guajome
Park Academy
Rock Star Superintendent
Failure to Think
Special Education
Anti-parent war chest
Community Colleges
Elem/High Schools
Grossmont-Cuyamaca
BLOGS
SD Education Report BLOG
Education and the Culture
Wars Blog
Getting rid of bad teachers
Improving Teacher Quality
Talking to Kids
Homework
Book Boondoggle?
Phonics
Spanking
Nat'l Board Certif
Ordinary People
Writing Sample
Getting rid of democracy
Schools and violence
092704 Nevitt statements
Maura Larkins v.
CVESD
Main Timeline
Motivations CP teachers
EDUCATION REFORM
Home
Case Summary
2003 Stutz invoices
2002 SDCOE payments
to Daniel Shinoff
2003 part 2 Stutz invoices
2004 Stutz invoices
2005 Stutz invoices
Public Records Requests
SDCOE Crosier denial
Payments to Shinoff
San Diego
Education Report
Home
Education Reform
Home
Larkins case summary
Return to "Why this
website"
Site Map
PLAINTIFF                                 DEFENDANTS
[Maura Larkins]                           [CVESD, et al]:
     
   129                                                  0



   300+                                                0
TOTALS TO DATE (TWO YEARS AFTER THIS CASE WAS FILED):  
_______________________________________________________________________
Special Interrogatories
answered:                   


Documents produced:                                    
        
PLAINTIFF                                 DEFENDANTS
[Maura Larkins]                           [CVESD, et al]:
   
 129                                                  0



 300+                                                0
TOTALS TO DATE (TWO YEARS AFTER THIS CASE WAS FILED):  
What's wrong with this picture?
_______________________________________________________________________