MAURA LARKINS
Defendant in pro per
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
) 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,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
Defendant.
________________________
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
Defendant.
________________________
| SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO |
| 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 |
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins Defamation suit regarding website |
SEPARATE STATEMENT
The deposition of Daniel Shinoff is
needed to discover the evidence he
plans to offer at trial regarding
statements about him on Defendant's
website. If Mr. Shinoff has no evidence,
he and his partners should immediately
withdraw their lawsuit. If he has
evidence, he should submit to a
deposition.
Defendant needs the following
information:
1. 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?
2. How does Plaintiff plan to prove
that Mr. Shinoff did not advise the
following violations of law and contract
committed by his clients at Chula Vista
Elementary School District against
Defendant after October 4, 2001, the
date on which Mr. Shinoff became lead
attorney in Defendant’s case against
Chula Vista Elementary School District?
a) Criminal violations of Labor Code
section 432.7;
b) Civil violations of Labor Code 1102.5;
c) Violations of Educational Employment
Relations Act;
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;
h) Perjury.
3. Defendant also needs to ask Mr.
Shinoff about the cover-up by his law
firm of the above violations of law by
CVESD, including:
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.
4. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: December 8, 2008
__________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
The deposition of Daniel Shinoff is
needed to discover the evidence he
plans to offer at trial regarding
statements about him on Defendant's
website. If Mr. Shinoff has no evidence,
he and his partners should immediately
withdraw their lawsuit. If he has
evidence, he should submit to a
deposition.
Defendant needs the following
information:
1. 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?
2. How does Plaintiff plan to prove
that Mr. Shinoff did not advise the
following violations of law and contract
committed by his clients at Chula Vista
Elementary School District against
Defendant after October 4, 2001, the
date on which Mr. Shinoff became lead
attorney in Defendant’s case against
Chula Vista Elementary School District?
a) Criminal violations of Labor Code
section 432.7;
b) Civil violations of Labor Code 1102.5;
c) Violations of Educational Employment
Relations Act;
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;
h) Perjury.
3. Defendant also needs to ask Mr.
Shinoff about the cover-up by his law
firm of the above violations of law by
CVESD, including:
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.
4. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: December 8, 2008
__________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
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) 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 computation.)
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.
III. 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.
VI. 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 section 2023(b)
(3)(B)-(C)).
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).
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) 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 computation.)
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.
III. 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.
VI. 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 section 2023(b)
(3)(B)-(C)).
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's Objection to Nov. 2008 Notice of Deposition |
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).
VII. 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 Section 2025.450(a)).
| COURT RULING REGARDING MAURA LARKINS' FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL |
VIII. GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE MADE
Daniel Shinoff continues to refuse to discuss this matter, and his representative, Ljubisa
Kostic, has not relayed any information to Defendant about Daniel Shinoff’s intentions.
IX. SASH FAILED TO SEEK A PROTECTIVE ORDER
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-
finding.
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.
CONCLUSION
Daniel Shinoff was properly served. Daniel Shinoff failed to appear without a valid objection
or a protective order showing good cause. Defendant’s good-faith attempt at resolving the
issue has failed. Therefore, the Court should grant defendant LARKINS’ motion to compel
the deposition of Daniel Shinoff and move this case toward a conclusion.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: December 8, 2008 __________________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
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 Deposition
(Exhibit 6).
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. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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: December 8, 2008 _________________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
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 Deposition
(Exhibit 6).
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. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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: December 8, 2008 _________________________________
Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per
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
transcript, please.
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
deposition process.
MS. LARKINS: Okay.
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
transcript, please.
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
deposition process.
MS. LARKINS: Okay.
I. PLAINTIFF STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF & HOTLZ REFUSES TO PROVIDE
DEFENDANT WITH THE INFORMATION SHE NEEDS TO DEFEND HERSELF
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. Plaintiff should not have brought this lawsuit if it was not
prepared to submit to discovery.
II. STUTZ’ OBJECTION TO MR. SHINOFF’S DEPOSITION 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:
DEFENDANT WITH THE INFORMATION SHE NEEDS TO DEFEND HERSELF
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. Plaintiff should not have brought this lawsuit if it was not
prepared to submit to discovery.
II. STUTZ’ OBJECTION TO MR. SHINOFF’S DEPOSITION 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:
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:
seek a protective order, something he has yet to do over a year later:
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?
MR. SHINOFF:
Yes, we are going to go off to seek a protective order.
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?
MR. SHINOFF:
Yes, we are going to go off to seek a protective order.
| 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.) |
| I revised the motion below before filing it on January 15, 2009. The revised motion is HERE. It will be heard on February 6, 2009. |