| Motion to Compel Gina Boyd's deposition testimony |
MAURA LARKINS
Plaintiff in pro per
Plaintiff in pro per
| Maura Larkins v. Richard Werlin and CTA with Judge Nevitt |
| BLOGS |
| Defamation Suit |
| Lawyers |
| Public Records Requests |
| Payments to Shinoff |
| Maura Larkins v. CVESD |
| Deposition of Maura Larkins 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 page |
) Case No. GIC 781970
) Judge: Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept: 64
) Hearing date: May 28, 2004 3 p.m.
)
)
) DECLARATION
) IN SUPPORT OF
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
) TO COMPEL
) PRODUCTION OF
) DOCUMENTS & DEPOSITION
) TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA
) BOYD
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: 1/24/2002
) TRIAL DATE: 10/22/2004
) Judge: Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept: 64
) Hearing date: May 28, 2004 3 p.m.
)
)
) DECLARATION
) IN SUPPORT OF
) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
) TO COMPEL
) PRODUCTION OF
) DOCUMENTS & DEPOSITION
) TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA
) BOYD
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: 1/24/2002
) TRIAL DATE: 10/22/2004
1. I, the undersigned, am Plaintiff in pro per in this lawsuit.
2. On or about February 19, 2004 Plaintiff served a Deposition Notice for
Appearance and Production of Documents of Virginia Boyd on March 22, 2004.
3. On the date of the deposition, March 22, 2004, Boyd’s counsel Mr.
Hersh produced no documents. He said that he could not find any notes
taken by Virginia Boyd when she was representing Plaintiff. During the
deposition, Boyd said that she had taken the notes, but indicated that they
might not now exist (Exhibit A, pages 48, lines 12-25, page 49, lines 1-2).
4. Virginia Boyd answered deposition questions for about 90 minutes, at
which time Mr. Hersh directed Virginia Boyd not to answer any more
questions and declared that Plaintiff’s questions were not within the scope
of discovery.
5. At that time Plaintiff suspended the deposition to file a Motion to
Compel.
6. Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter (Exhibit G) to Mr. Hersh. Mr.
Hersh did not agree to have his client answer questions.
7. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel BOYD to produce the notes she
admits she took on February 12, 2004.
8. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel BOYD to respond to Plaintiff’s
deposition questions regarding events at Castle Park School and Chula Vista
Elementary School District related to Plaintiff’s loss of her position and
eventual dismissal, because the questions are relevant to the subject
matter of this action, and the information is not privileged or otherwise
exempt from discovery.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: April 13, 2004
Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in pro per
2. On or about February 19, 2004 Plaintiff served a Deposition Notice for
Appearance and Production of Documents of Virginia Boyd on March 22, 2004.
3. On the date of the deposition, March 22, 2004, Boyd’s counsel Mr.
Hersh produced no documents. He said that he could not find any notes
taken by Virginia Boyd when she was representing Plaintiff. During the
deposition, Boyd said that she had taken the notes, but indicated that they
might not now exist (Exhibit A, pages 48, lines 12-25, page 49, lines 1-2).
4. Virginia Boyd answered deposition questions for about 90 minutes, at
which time Mr. Hersh directed Virginia Boyd not to answer any more
questions and declared that Plaintiff’s questions were not within the scope
of discovery.
5. At that time Plaintiff suspended the deposition to file a Motion to
Compel.
6. Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter (Exhibit G) to Mr. Hersh. Mr.
Hersh did not agree to have his client answer questions.
7. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel BOYD to produce the notes she
admits she took on February 12, 2004.
8. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel BOYD to respond to Plaintiff’s
deposition questions regarding events at Castle Park School and Chula Vista
Elementary School District related to Plaintiff’s loss of her position and
eventual dismissal, because the questions are relevant to the subject
matter of this action, and the information is not privileged or otherwise
exempt from discovery.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: April 13, 2004
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.
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