COURT RULING REGARDING MAURA
LARKINS' FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL
(motion to compel continued)
VI. THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED TO WITHIN AN INCH OF
THEIR LIVES, OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR MANY YEARS
Plaintiff has precisely described the requested documents:
“Please produce the documents Bate-stamped with the numbers 1 through 87 inclusive, which
were collected by Daniel Shinoff at Chula Vista Elementary School District during the fall of 2001,
and Bate-stamped with the number “1” (not “01” or “001”) through 87, inclusive. In order to make it
easy for Plaintiff to identify the precise documents hereby requested, Defendant has attached
Exhibit 1 to this Request for Production. Exhibit 1 contains approximately thirty-two documents from
the Bate-stamped set herein described. If Plaintiff is troubled by any doubts as to whether it has
found the correct set of documents, Plaintiff should simply check to make sure that the documents
in Exhibit 1 are the same as the corresponding Bate-stamped documents in the set Plaintiff has
Plaintiff’s excuses for not producing the documents are bogus. Ray Artiano states in his
objection to the production of these documents:
“This request for production of documents fails to specify the documents sought with reasonable
particularity (it talks about when the documents were allegedly collected and how they were
numbered, but does not state what the documents consist of), and is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…”
Daniel Shinoff knows precisely what the missing documents are. He personally collected
them from employees of CVESD. Defendant attached over thirty documents from the same
Bate-stamped set as the documents that are missing, making clear EXACTLY what the
requested Bate-stamped set consists of. Dan Shinoff collected the documents in an effort to
justify his clients’ actions against me. Clearly, the missing documents SERVE TO HELP
DEFENDANT, and were therefore kept hidden.
“[This request]…is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…”
|Maura Larkins' 2nd Motion to Compel
Deposition of Daniel Shinoff
(The court allowed Mr. Shinoff to get away with failing to attend
his first scheduled deposition in this case one year ago.)
Defendant in pro per
) Case No. 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
) Judge: Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept: 68
) Date: February 6, 2009
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
) DEPOSITION OF DANIEL SHINOFF
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, APC,
|SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v.
Defamation suit regarding
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF NEEDED
Defendant needs the following
1. All pages of the set of documents
that was collected by attorney Daniel
Shinoff in the fall of 2001 at Chula Vista
Elementary School district, and obtained
by Parham & Associates attorney Mark
Bresee in or about September of 2002
from either Chula Vista Elementary
School District or the law firm of Stutz,
Artiano Shinoff & Holtz for use in the
case of Chula Vista Elementary School
District v. Maura Larkins, case L-
2002050728 at the California Office of
Administrative Hearings (“OAH”).
The documents were Bate-stamped with
numbers starting with “1” (not “01” or
“001”) and continuing at least through
Neither Mr. Shinoff nor Mr. Bresee ever
produced the complete set of 87 or
more documents, but one or both of
them cherry-picked roughly half of the
documents and produced them fort use
in the OAH hearing.
In order to make identification of this
set easy and foolproof, approximately
thirty-two of the documents produced
by Mr. Bresee are attached as Exhibit 1.
Defendant needs Mr. Shinoff’s
testimony regarding the following:
2. Regarding the 87 (or more)
documents in the Bate-stamped set
described in #1 above: Were the
documents Bate-stamped by Plaintiff?
How many documents from this set
were provided to Mr. Bresee in 2002?
3. Did Mr. Shinoff advise CVESD board
members, administrators and teachers
to violate the law? If not, if CVESD
clients decided to repeatedly violate the
law despite Mr. Shinoff’s warnings, why
didn’t he resign?
4. What were the circumstances under
which the following violations of law
and contract were committed by Mr.
Shinoff’s clients at Chula Vista
Elementary School District against
Defendant after October 4, 2001, the
date on which Mr. Shinoff became lead
attorney in the case?
a) Criminal violations of Labor Code
b) Civil violations of Labor Code 1102.5;
c) Violations of Educational Employment
d) Violations of the contract between
Chula Vista Educators and CVESD;
e) Attempted and/or successful
perpetration of frauds on the court;
f) Abuses of the discovery process;
g) Intimidation of witnesses;
5. Defendant also needs to ask Mr.
Shinoff about the cover-up by his law
firm of the above violations of law by
a) Attempted and/or successful
perpetration of frauds on the court;
b) Abuses of the discovery process;
c) Intimidation of witnesses;
d) Subornation of perjury.
6. Why did Mr. Shinoff take $100,000s
of taxpayer dollars to cover up this
wrongdoing? If Mr. Shinoff did not
direct that Plaintiff’s efforts to
perpetrate frauds on the court, then
7. Defendant needs information about
Mr. Shinoff’s policies regarding
arresting parents, students and school
employees who complain about school
policies, and Mr. Shinoff’s habits and
customs regarding tortuous
interference. Defendant needs to ask
Mr. Shinoff about any efforts he made to
apprise himself of the facts of the
Larkins v. CVESD case, and any efforts
he made to prevent his client from
violating laws or contracts.
8. Defendant needs information about
Mr. Shinoff’s contentions regarding the
specific allegations in the First Amended
DATED: January 12, 2009
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
Daniel Shinoff's Objection to Nov. 2008
Notice of Deposition
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT MAURA LARKINS
I, the undersigned, declare:
1. I am the plaintiff in pro per herein.
2. I first served Daniel Shinoff with a Notice of Deposition and
Deposition Subpoena in this case in November 2007.
3. Mr. Shinoff has not filed an objection to the November 2007 Notice of
Deposition at any time.
4. An hour before his deposition was to begin, Mr. Shinoff told me that
he would not appear. Mr. Shinoff’s words were recorded by the court
reporter at Mr. Artiano’s deposition.
5. At the same time, Mr. Shinoff told me that he would file a Motion for
Protective Order regarding his own deposition and that of Mr. Artiano.
6. Neither Mr. Shinoff nor any lawyer at Plaintiff’s law firm filed either of
the promised Motions for Protective Order.
7. I again served Daniel Shinoff with a Notice of Deposition and
Deposition Subpoena in November 2008 (Exhibit 7).
8. In November 2008 Mr. Shinoff did file an objection to his Notice of
9. Mr. Shinoff once again failed to file a motion for protective order
after his second Notice of Deposition served in 2008. He has never filed
a Motion for a Protective order regarding either of his deposition
notices in this case.
10. The April 25, 2008 ruling of the court on my Motion to Compel,
which is cited in Mr. Shinoff’s current objection, makes no reference to
Daniel Shinoff’s deposition, and in fact, seems to have ignored it
entirely. Defendant accepts the blame for this, since she probably
included too many items in her motion to compel.
11. The decision by the court points out Defendant’s failure to
provide a separate statement, and this criticism rightly applies to Ray
Artiano’s deposition, but not to Mr. Shinoff’s deposition. No separate
statement was necessary to compel Mr. Shinoff’s deposition since he
had never shown up for his deposition.
12. In an abundance of caution, I am nevertheless attaching a
separate statement of discovery needed from Mr. Shinoff to the instant
Motion to Compel Daniel Shinoff’s deposition.
13. On December 8, 2008 at about 10:30 a.m. I called Attorney Ljubisa
Kostic to meet and confer about the deposition of Daniel Shinoff. Mr.
Kostic said he would have to speak to Daniel Shinoff about it. He never
called me back.
14. On January 6, 2009 I called Mr. Kostic and asked if Mr. Shinoff
would agree to a deposition. Mr. Kostic said that he would speak to me
only if I stop writing about him.
I did not agree to stop writing about what is happening in this case, so
Mr. Kostic refused to speak to me about Daniel Shinoff’s deposition.
15. During the January 6, 2009 phone call, Mr. Kostic refused to
discuss the documents that his firm has refused to produce.
16. The deposition of SASH attorney Daniel Shinoff is needed in this
case because he was the lead defense attorney for Chula Vista
Elementary School District in my 2002 lawsuit for defamation and
violation of Labor Code section 432.7 and 1102.5, and that case triggered
the creation of my website, San Diego Education Report. Daniel Shinoff
was able to get that case dismissed without any fact-finding, but I put the
facts on my website. I am concerned about the wholesale violations of
law by public entities, clearly supported, if not directed, by public entity
attorneys such as Daniel Shinoff.
17. Plaintiff has delayed the case by refusing to produce partner
Daniel Shinoff for a deposition both times that I have served a Notice of
Deposition and Subpoena on him. A plaintiff that is a legal corporation
can not appropriately conduct a lawsuit when it refuses to produce for
deposition the corporation partner whose actions are at the heart of the
issues in the case.
18. My website, and therefore this case, focuses on Mr. Shinoff as
the main actor in the events that caused me to create my website. Mr.
Shinoff’s deposition is necessary in this case.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: January 12, 2009 _________________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
I. DEPOSITION OF DANIEL SHINOFF AND PRODUCTION OF 87 BATE-STAMPED
DOCUMENTS ARE PIERCINGLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, AND ARE EXTREMELY
LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
The deposition of Daniel Shinoff and production of 87 Bate-stamped documents is
absolutely necessary in this case—if the case is to go to trial.
Here are the facts underlying this case:
October 4, 2001: Defendant filed a tort claim against Chula Vista Elementary School
October 4, 2001: Daniel Shinoff began to work for CVESD in the case, eventually
collecting a set of at least 87 documents at CVESD. Many of the documents were
handwritten notes collected from employees at Castle Park Elementary School (Exhibit
1), but Mr. Shinoff never spoke to Maura Larkins for the “investigation.”
March 12, 2002: Defendant filed suit against CVESD.
May 7, 2002: In retaliation, CVESD illegally voted to dismiss Defendant from
Later in 2002: Some of the 87 or more Bate-stamped documents collected by Mr.
Shinoff at Castle Park Elementary were cherry-picked and produced for Defendant’s
dismissal hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings. The rest of the documents
have been never been produced.
October 5, 2007: Daniel Shinoff and his partners filed suit against Defendant for
statements on her website, including “Mr. Shinoff covered up crimes at CVESD.”
April 2009: Plaintiff can not possibly convince either a judge or a jury that the
statement “Mr. Shinoff covered up crimes at CVESD” is false—unless Plaintiff produces
the documents Mr. Shinoff collected at Castle Park Elementary School, where the
criminal activity began. The same is true for all the rest of Defendant’s statements,
including “Shinoff keeps documents locked up in his files,” and “Stutz perpetrates
frauds on the court.
Furthermore, no judge or jury could possibly be convinced of the falsity of Defendant’s
statements given the fact that Daniel Shinoff refuses to be deposed in this case.
It would seem that the court has two good options in this matter: either grant this motion
to compel, or dismiss the case entirely.
Attorney Daniel Shinoff is the partner of Plaintiff’s law firm who is most prominently
discussed on the website that is the target of this defamation suit. Mr. Shinoff was deeply
involved in the events that led to the creation of the website. Both Defendant’s website,
and, consequently, this case, focus on Mr. Shinoff as the main witness in the events that
caused Defendant to create her website.
Mr. Shinoff has an obligation to submit to a deposition in this case, and Plaintiff has an
obligation to produce him.
In addition, Plaintiff has the obligation to produce the Bate-stamped documents collected
by Daniel Shinoff in 2001 regarding the case on which the statements by Defendant that
are at issue in this case are based.
motion to compel continued:
III. THE COURT’S PRIOR RULING DOES NOT REFER TO MR. SHINOFF’S DEPOSITION OR
TO CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO MR. SHINOFF’S DEPOSITION
Plaintiff offers the April 25, 2008 ruling of the court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel
(Exhibit 5 below) as justification for Mr. Shinoff’s refusal to submit to a deposition in
November 2008. Plaintiff ignores the fact that this ruling makes no reference to Mr.
Shinoff’s deposition, or to any deposition involving circumstances similar to those of
Daniel Shinoff’s deposition. In fact, the court seems to have ignored Mr. Shinoff’s
deposition altogether. Defendant accepts the blame for this, since she included too many
items in her motion to compel, and apparently caused the court to overlook one of several
requests in the motion. The court accurately pointed out at the time that there was too much
extraneous information in Defendant’s motion. (Regarding timeliness, the motion was indeed
timely if the three months when the case was in federal court are not counted in the
The April 25, 2008 ruling points out Defendant’s failure to provide a separate statement,
and this criticism rightly applies to Defendant’s motion to compel Ray Artiano’s deposition, but it
does not apply to Mr. Shinoff’s deposition. No separate statement was necessary to compel Mr.
Shinoff’s deposition since he had never shown up for his deposition.
II. MR. SHINOFF’S OBJECTION RELIES ON AN OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD
Plaintiff’s objection to Mr. Shinoff’s Notice of Deposition (Exhibit 6) relies on an
outright falsehood, stating that “the subject deposition was previously suspended”
(page 1, line 23).
In fact, the subject deposition was never begun, as Mr. Shinoff himself made clear on
page 53, lines 5-19 of Ray Artiano’s November 9, 2007 deposition:
MS. LARKINS: I really am a person, who, when I'm wrong, I admit it.
THE WITNESS: Okay. That's the end of this deposition.
MR. SHINOFF: We'll give you notice of our motion for a protective
order. If we could have a copy of the deposition
MS. LARKINS: Are you going to attend your deposition, Mr. Shinoff?
MR. SHINOFF: No, because I'm concerned that the deposition will go
the same way. And I think we need guidance from the court so the court can
provide guidance for both parties in terms of the rules that govern the
MS. LARKINS: Okay.
THE VIDEOTAPE TECHNICIAN:
Excuse me. Counsel, I just need to find out technically how we are going off the
record, because everybody has to agree. You are going off to seek a protective
order, go off with that part of the statute?
Yes, we are going to go off to seek a protective
IV. DEFENDANT IS ATTACHING A SEPARATE STATEMENT TO THIS MOTION
In an abundance of caution, Defendant has attached a separate statement of discovery
needed from Mr. Shinoff to the instant Motion to Compel Daniel Shinoff’s deposition. The
separate statement also describes the documents requested.
V. DEFENDANT HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING SPECIFYING THE DOCUMENTS IN A
CRYSTAL-CLEAR, FOOL-PROOF MANNER
As demanded by the court in its April 25, 2008 tentative ruling regarding Defendant’s first
Motion to Compel in this case, Defendant included in her Request for Production of Documents
dated November 4, 2008 (Exhibit 2) approximately 32 documents from the Bate-stamped set
that was collected by Daniel Shinoff at Chula Vista Elementary School in the fall of 2001 (Exhibit
The Exhibit 1 documents were cherry-picked from the larger set and were produced at
Defendant’s Office of Administrative Hearings hearing. However, many of the documents
from the Bate-stamped set of at least 87 documents have never been produced by
anyone. They remain locked up in Plaintiff’s files.
It is hard to imagine any reason other than that these documents contain evidence of the
crimes and other illegal acts of which Defendant accuses Plaintiff on her website. Defendant
believes that the documents contain evidence supporting her statements on her website.
If the documents did not contain evidence of crimes and other wrongdoing, they
would have been produced years ago.
It will be impossible for Plaintiff to prove its case without producing these
documents. If these documents are not produced, the case should be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s Response to Request for Production of Documents is an exercise in deception, as
can be seen in Ray Artiano’s deposition statements one year ago (Exhibit 4).
Ray Artiano claimed in his deposition:
Again, on page 54, lines 6-12 of the same transcript, Mr. Shinoff again asserts that
he will seek a protective order, something he has yet to do over a year later:
3) Stutz law firm falsely denies that it has received any complaint about its integrity
from anyone other than defendant:
“[Ray Artiano]…nor have we ever had any complaints about unethical or
illegal behavior on the part of any attorney in my firm other than from you.”
(Exhibit 2, Page 49 lines 4-8).”
In fact, just three months before giving this testimony, Artiano, as SASH’s
agent for service, received the Claudia Houston filed suit against Daniel
Shinoff and SASH in federal court for tortious interference.
Ray Artiano seems perfectly willing to commit perjury to advance his lawsuit against
Defendant for saying that Plaintiff’s attorneys suborn perjury. Mr. Artiano’s contempt
for the laws and justice system of California is clear on almost every page of his
“Q…[Maura Larkins] When you first saw that charge on my
website, did it occur to you to do any investigation at all into
Daniel Shinoff or, well, you say you have known Daniel Shinoff
for 30 years, and you wouldn't question him. But how about
Kelly Angell, did you do any investigating into Kelly Angell's
A. [Ray Artiano] Of course not.
Q. May I ask why?
A. Because there was no need for me to do that, because I
would know if anybody in my law firm had violated California
Q. How would you know that?
A. -- in case after case. We would be notified by the state
bar. We would be notified by the courts.
Q. Isn't it true that the state bar does not take complaints
from opposing clients or attorneys?
A. No, it is not true.
(Exhibit 2, Page 40 lines 13-25 and page 41 lines 1-5)
1) : “there is no need to determine whether or not the statements on your
website were true, because I knew them to be false” (Exhibit 2, Page 48 lines 19-24).
Here is the context of the questions: “Q. …On Number 4, did you bring any documents
related to your investigation into whether the facts on my website might be true? A.
There are no documents, because there is no need to determine whether or not
the statements on your website were true, because I knew them to be false.”
2) SASH is determined not to discuss the possibility of obstruction of justice by its
lawyers. SASH apparently thinks the rules of court do not apply to it. From Ray Artiano’
VII. DAN SHINOFF AND RAY ARTIANO BLAMED A PARALEGAL FOR NOT
PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTS
Mr. Shinoff says it's an inappropriate question in a deposition to ask Mr. Artiano if he himself
will look for the missing documents, even though the paralegal to whom the task was
allegedly delegated was completely unsuccessful in finding the documents.
Defendant requests that the court order Daniel Shinoff and Ray Artiano to look for the
requested documents themselves, since their paralegal is allegedly unable to find them.
In fact, the real reason that Plaintiff refuses to produce the documents is
because they contain clear evidence of the crimes and other wrongdoing that
defendant discusses on her website.
Why else would Plaintiff have kept the documents under lock and key during the
previous case? If they tended to support Mr. Shinoff’s case, they would have been
produced. Clearly, the documents are very damaging to Plaintiff.
Ray Artiano and Daniel Shinoff have refused to agree to look for the
documents; they blame a paralegal for not finding them (Ray Artiano deposition,
page 11, lines 14-19 (Exhibit 4). Most likely, Daniel Shinoff has hidden the
documents in a place not accessible by the paralegal in question. The excuses
need to end. The documents need to be produced.
X. GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE MADE
Daniel Shinoff continues to refuse to discuss this matter, and his representative, Ljubisa Kostic,
has now taken the stance that he will not discuss discovery (or anything else) with me. Plaintiff is
using the resources of the public to prosecute this case, and has the obligation to discuss
discovery with defendant. Furthermore, defendant is obligated to discuss in public records the
words of Plaintiff regarding discovery. There is no legitimate reason that Plaintiff’s refusal
to submit to discovery should be kept secret from the public, yet Mr. Kostic told me
January 6, 2009 that he would speak to me only if I stop writing about him.
XI. SASH FAILED TO SEEK A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF
A deponent who, after being properly served, fails to comply, bears the burden of justifying
such refusal on a motion to compel (Code Civil Procedure section 2025(j)(3)). Merely objecting
to the taking of a deposition does not prevent the deponent from testifying; the deponent should
promptly move for a protective order before the deposition date (Code Civil Procedure section
2025(i)). Only upon a showing of good cause may a court then make any order that justice
requires (Id). Lacking the prerequisite protective order showing good cause, or a stay order
pending a hearing on a protective motion, a court has no discretion to refuse to exercise its
powers, so far as necessary to secure to a party the right to take a deposition (see Crocker v.
Conrey (1903) 140 Cal. 213).
Daniel Shinoff did not seek a stay order or a protective order against his deposition
at any time, whether based on a showing of good cause or otherwise.
XII. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS
This case has grown out of a lawsuit for defamation and violation of Labor Code section
432.7 and 1102.5 filed by me against Defendant against Chula Vista Elementary School
District (“CVESD”) in 2002. STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOLTZ (“SASH”), the Plaintiff in
the instant case, defended CVESD in the prior case, which was dismissed without any fact-
I, defendant Maura Larkins, had been a teacher at CVESD for 26 years when I was
removed from my classroom because two teachers said they feared I would kill them.
Contrary to what SASH attorney Ljubisa Kostic recently stated in court pleadings, no one
ever said that I made any threats at all, or did anything to indicate that I might be
homicidal. The source of the fears was unspoken.
After a great deal of effort I learned that a sheriff’s deputy in Santa Barbara had given his
sister, a teacher at my school, a police report containing a statement made by my mentally-
ill ex sister-in-law when she was trying to help my brother remove me as co-administrator
of my father’s estate. She told police I was mentally ill and I had a handgun. I was
arrested for trespassing in my dead father’s apartment when I was administrator of his
estate. I was never charged with any offense. My colleague who criminally obtained the
police report presented the allegations against me as fact to other teachers, and hysteria
ensued. I was placed on administrative leave. The district then asked me to return, and
then sent me home again, until I finally stayed home for my own safety. Contrary to Mr.
Kostic’s allegations, I was not dismissed until after I filed suit against CVESD.
The original dismissal charge against me was that I failed to come to work, but the final
Office of Administrative Hearings decision stated that I was being dismissed for filing
grievances and a lawsuit, which proved that I was not “forgiving.” The dismissal was thus
a blatant violation of Labor Code 1102.5 (retaliation). Of course, the main reason I was
dismissed was that the district wanted me to be silent about its criminal violations of Labor
Code 432.7, and the unhealthy bullying culture that makes our schools dangerous for
teachers as well as students.
Plaintiff SASH has enthusiastically embraced the OAH decision in the past, but now
disowns responsibility for the illegal decision to dismiss me.
Daniel Shinoff is the individual most discussed on Defendant’s website, with the possible
exception of the Defendant herself. The instant case, like Defendant’s website, grew out of
Defendant’s knowledge of Mr. Shinoff’s wrongdoing as a public entity lawyer, and her
subsequent investigations into the taxpayer-funded system that supports that wrongdoing, and
the schools that are damaged by it.
Daniel Shinoff was properly served with a Deposition Subpoena. Daniel Shinoff failed to
appear without a valid objection or a protective order showing good cause. Plaintiff was properly
served with a request for production of documents. Plaintiff’s objections have no substance in
law or public policy, and make no sense. The objection is simply an effort to get away with
malicious prosecution in a case that should never have been brought. Defendant’s good-faith
attempts at resolving the issues have failed. Therefore, the Court should grant defendant
LARKINS’ motion to compel the deposition of Daniel Shinoff and the production of documents by
Plaintiff and move this case toward a conclusion.
DATED: January 12, 2009 __________________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
VIII. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION WAS PROPERLY SERVED
A party may obtain discovery by oral deposition (Code Cov. Pro. Section 2019(a).) A misuse of discovery includes
failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery (Code Civ. Pro. Section 2023(a)(4)). Judicial
remedies available include, but are not limited to, a stay order or a dismissal of the action (Code Civ. Procedure
Within limits, any party may take the oral deposition of any person by properly serving a Notice of Deposition
(Code Civil Procedure section 2025(b)(1)). A service of notice is effective to require a party to appear and testify at
a scheduled deposition (Code Civ. Procedure section 2025(h)(1)). Proper service of notice of deposition compels
the opposing party to appear and testify (Code Civ. Procedure section 2025(1)(1).
Daniel Shinoff was properly served under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025 (1)(1). Daniel Shinoff, being
properly served, is therefore legally obligated to appear and testify. Both a Notice of Deposition and a subpoena
were served on Mr. Shinoff (Exhibit 7).
IX. THIS MOTION IS PROPER
When properly served, a noticing party may move the Court for an order to compel when the party served does not
have a valid objection under the Code of Civil Procedure (Code Civil Procedure section 2025(j)(3)). With the
motion to compel must be a declaration of a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue (Code Civil Procedure section
2025(j)(B)(3); Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124). Here, Plaintiff
and Daniel Shinoff have not stated a valid objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025, subdivision (b)
through (f); nor sought a protective order. Defendant attempted to meet and confer to no avail. Thus, Movant
seeks an order compelling Plaintiff’s and Daniel Shinoff’s testimony.
If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a
party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a
valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for
inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move
for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any
document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice (CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE