SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                     COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO


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.                               
______________________________________

Comes now Plaintiff and offers this Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order:

1. REGARDING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS AND VIDEOTAPES

A. PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION SHOULD NOT BE KEPT SECRET; IT WAS COURT-
ORDERED AND WAS REQUESTED BY THE VERY DEFENDANTS WHO NOW SEEK TO
PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM SEEING IT

The taxpayers paid for the lawyer who conducted the deposition, the court reporter who
recorded it, and the enormous city-view conference room in which the deposition was
conducted.

The Court, the Plaintiff and Defendants all agreed that Plaintiff’s court-ordered deposition
was essential to the justice process.  The justice process should be open to the public.
Now Defendants have prevented issues regarding which Plaintiff testified in her deposition
from ever being subjected to a trial on the evidence by seeking and winning terminating
sanctions ON THE BASIS OF THAT VERY DEPOSITION,
AND Defendants want to keep Plaintiff’s deposition, and the justice process, secret.

Plaintiff believes that the public has a right to oversee the justice process.  The public also
has a right to know the purposes to which hundreds of thousands of public dollars were
spent in this case on lawyers who covered up crimes and other illegal actions.  

BUT what is of more importance to the public is that hundreds of thousands of dollars were
paid to lawyers to PREVENT NEEDED REFORMS IN EDUCATION.  Instead of protecting
the rights of students to a good education, county counsel in this case protected a warped
culture among teachers and administrators at CVESD, a culture of destructive hostility.  
Those administrators have been replaced, but those teachers are now engaged in a
malicious public attack on the new superintendent and new principal who are trying to
improve education in Chula Vista Elementary Schools and restore a law-abiding teacher
culture to Castle Park Elementary.

The right of the public to oversee its finances and the legal functioning of public entities
outweighs the right of privacy of witnesses, if: the witnesses have made public statements
and/or have sought media attention regarding events which have a bearing on the
finances and/or legal functioning of a public entity.

B. TWO OF THE DEPONENTS IN THIS CASE ARE PUBLIC FIGURES, AND HAVE NO
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

The two deponents in this case who are public figures are:

1)        Gina Boyd, President of Chula Vista Educators, a local affiliate of
California Teachers Association;

2)        Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, which is not only a public figure, but a public
entity.

These deponents do not have, and should not have, any expectation of privacy.

C. LAWYERS HAVE NO EXPECTATION THAT THEIR ACTIONS WILL BE KEPT SECRET

The LAWYERS who conducted this case, particularly county counsel, do not have any
right to expect that their actions in this case will be concealed from public view.

1.        ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN ABUSED IN THIS CASE
County counsel has stated to deponents (in statements recorded in deposition transcripts
and videotapes) that any conversation a deponent had with Rick Werlin is covered by
attorney clients privilege, even if no lawyer was present, if a lawyer told Werlin to have that
conversation!!!

2.        DEPONENTS WERE INTIMIDATED BY COUNSEL IN THIS CASE
County counsel said (in statements recorded in deposition transcripts and videotapes) that
deponents’ careers might be in danger if they answered certain questions.  Since county
counsel is the district’s counsel, she would most certainly be required to tell the district that
it would be illegal to retaliate for any testimony given by defendants in depositions, it
therefore appears that county counsel was trying to intimidate witnesses.

COUNTY COUNSEL TRIED TO DECEIVE THE COURT

County counsel tried to deceive the court on December 3, 2004 saying that Plaintiff knew
that the December 17, 2004 date for the hearing of this Motion for Protective Order had
been changed to December 3, 2004.  Plaintiff found out three days before the hearing
(Exhibit1, November 30, 2004 fax to Ms. Angell).

D.        ONLY TEACHERS WHO HAVE THEMSELVES ADDRESSED ISSUES CONCERNING
PLAINTIFF--IN PUBLIC OR IN A PUBLIC RECORD—HAVE BEEN DEPOSED IN THIS CASE
Aside from the above two public figure deponents, all the deponents in this case are
elementary school teachers who have waived any expectation of privacy they would
otherwise have had by making public accusations, and/or making themselves of interest to
the public by going to the media.

This is Superior Court--not mediation.  This is a public forum for justice, not a place to find
out how much one can get away with, and then pretend it never happened.  Defendants
have succeeded in keeping the evidence in this case from being examined by a court of
law; they should not be allowed to hide the evidence from the court of public opinion.  This
case involves the public institution on which all other public institutions rely—the education
system.

E.        PLAINTIFF’S REPUTATION AND CAREER HAVE BEEN DESTROYED

1. The otherwise decent and reasonable people who govern or are employed by CVESD
and CTA appear perfectly comfortable with the idea that false allegations about Plaintiff
should be allowed to stand in the public record, but Plaintiff is not.  Plaintiff no longer has
the option of clearing her name in a courtroom.  Plaintiff must find another way to clear her
name, and the deposition transcripts are necessary to allow her to do so.  It is not only for
herself that Plaintiff is concerned, but for all those who have been harmed by illegal and/or
criminal actions of defendants, and all those who will be harmed in the future, if defendants
are able to prevent publication of evidence which proves Plaintiff was falsely accused.

2. PLAINTIFF CAN NOT CLEAR HER NAME WITHOUT EITHER RETRACTIONS OR
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS AND VIDEOTAPES.  Plaintiff is willing to participate in
mediation with any deponent who wishes, with the possibility that a retraction might be
made by a deponent that would repair some of the harm to Plaintiff, in lieu of Plaintiff using
the deponent’s deposition to prove the falsity of the allegations against Plaintiff.

G.  PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO ASSOCIATION DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff stands by all her statements in letters included in Mr. Hersh’s  Motion for Protective
Order.  Sometimes it appears that Mr. Hersh’s arguments and exhibits support Plaintiff’s
point of view more effectively than they support Mr. Hersh’s own point of view.

Each of the seven paragraphs in Mr. Hersh’s proposed order is improper.  The reasons for
the impropriety of these seven requests are, respectively:

1.    It is impossible to order that Boyd’s deposition be terminated on March 22, 2004 since
Ms. Boyd’s deposition was continued on October 11, 2004.  The court is powerful, but it
can’t prevent something which has already happened.

2.    An order to prevent additional discovery into CVE representation of Plaintiff is moot,
since CVE and CTA have been dismissed with prejudice from this case, but the request is
evidence that CTA and CVE are desperate to cover up the truth.

3.    An order to prevent additional discovery into CVE/CTA determinations of plaintiff’s
requests is moot, since CVE and CTA have been dismissed with prejudice from this case,
but the request is evidence that CTA and CVE are desperate to cover up the truth.

4.        Please see Plaintiff’s detailed discussion of deposition videotapes above.

5.        An order to prevent plaintiff from making statements to CVE and CTA members,
officers and staff about Mr. Hersh’s obligation to communicate with his clients is moot,
since CVE and CTA have been dismissed with prejudice from this case.  However, the
court ruled on September 27, 2004 that parties had a right to communicate, and denied
defendants’ motion to prevent communication.

6.        An order to forbid Plaintiff to communicate with other parties is not only moot, but it
has already been requested and denied in this case, in an ex parte hearing on September
27, 2004.  Mr. Hersh is trying to get around a decision that has been made by the court.

7.        CTA has wasted an enormous amount of money paid by teachers in this case, but
Plaintiff is not responsible for Mr. Hersh’s efforts to hide evidence.

H. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MS. ANGELL’S JOINDER TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER

1.  MS. ANGELL DOES NOT APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF PLAINTIFF’S
ASKING DEPONENTS ABOUT THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD DUE PROCESS.
Deponents made self-contradictory statements about due process, supporting Plaintiff’s
claim that Deponents are engaged in a cover-up.  Plaintiff was not attempting to prove the
obvious (that her due process rights had been violated), but to prove that deponents
wanted evidence covered up.

2.  PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF LAW BY
CVESD EMPLOYEES WAS PROPER.

Plaintiff stands by her statement that CVESD should have investigated Labor Code and
other violations of law three-and-a-half years ago.  

I.        PLAINTIFF ASKS THAT HER PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER BE GRANTED TO
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff is willing to accept limitations on her use of deposition transcripts and videotapes,
and therefore offers the attached Proposed Protective Order as a just alternative to
Defendants’ proposed order.  Plaintiff suggests that:

1.        Only sections of transcripts and/or videotapes which specifically relate to a matter
of public interest may be published by plaintiff;

2.        Other sections may be used only with the consent of the deponent.  


DATED: December 6, 2004                                                        
                              Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in pro per
Protective Order
Hearing December 17, 2004
) Case No.         GIC 781970
) Judge:      Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept:                 64
) Hearing date:  Dec. 17, 2004  1:30 p.m.
)
) MEMORANDUM OF
) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
) IN OPPOSITION TO
) ASSOCIATION DEFENDANTS’
) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
) ORDER,
AND
) LINDA WATSON AND
) ROBIN DONLAN’S
) JOINDER          
)
)
)  COMPLAINT FILED: 1/24/2002
) TRIAL DATE: not set
)
Return to case main
timeline
Return to Stutz
documents
mauralarkin.com
Maura Larkin's
San Diego Education
Report Blog
SITE MAP
Maura Larkins Case
List of School Districts
Lawyers
Public Entities & Press
Home

Why This Website

SDCOE

CVESD

CTA

Stutz Artiano Shinoff

Silence is Golden

Schools and Violence

Office Admin Hearings

Larkins OAH Hearing
Maura Larkins v. CVESD
SAN DIEGO EDUCATION
REPORT
Larkins case
summary