Motion to Compel Daniel Shinoff deposition

MAURA LARKINS
Defendant in pro per

                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                                             COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, APC,

Plaintiff,




vs.


MAURA LARKINS,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.



_________________________________

Motion to compel deposition of Dan Shinoff
and production of documents by
Daniel Shinoff and Ray Artiano
April 25, 2007

) Case No. 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
) Judge:              Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept:                68
) Date                 April 25, 2008        10:30 a.m.
)
) ANY PARTY WANTING TO ORALLY ARGUE
) THE TENTATIVE RULING SHOULD APPEAR
) AT THE ABOVE HEARING
)
) DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF
) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
) MOTION TO COMPEL APPEARANCE AT
) DEPOSITION AND
) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR
) SANCTIONS
)
)
)
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
)

I.        CONCEALMENT OF THE TRUTH IS AT THE CORE
OF THIS LAWSUIT AND THIS MOTION

This motion by defendant seeks to compel deposition testimony and production of documents
by Ray Artiano, designated representative for Plaintiff Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, APC
(“SASH”); and Daniel Shinoff, partner of and counsel for Ray Artiano in this case. Mr. Shinoff
is an important witness in this case since his actions are described in detail on the website
that is the target of this defamation claim.

The partial deposition of Ray Artiano on November 8, 2007 (Exhibit 2) is a compendium of
puzzling claims, evasions, and refusals to answer by Ray Artiano and his counsel, Daniel
Shinoff.

II.        ARTIANO AND SHINOFF WALKED OUT UPON HEARING

THESE WORDS

From the Deposition of Ray Artiano, Exhibit 2, Page 53 Lines 5-8:

“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.”

III.         SASH THREATENED TO WALK OUT TO AVOID DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC
ACCUSATIONS IN ITS OWN COMPLAINT

In paragraph 25 of the Stutz complaint (Exhibit 8), Plaintiff states:

“Another article on Defendant’s website is entitled ‘Why did Gallagher suddenly leave his own
firm, Stutz Gallagher, in 2004?’ [Maura Larkins] makes the factual assertion that Robert
Gallagher left SASH in December 2003 after Maura Larkins wrote a letter to the firm in
December 2003 detailing obstruction of justice by Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell.”

SASH should not have filed this complaint if it doesn’t want to discuss the departure of Robert
Gallagher. SASH does not appear to feel that it has any obligation to discuss its own
allegations. SASH seems to feel entitled to use up scarce court resources without any
intention of conducting litigation in an appropriate manner.

SASH refuses to make any effort to examine the possibility that my allegations are true
regarding criminal wrongdoing by SASH. Ray Artiano and Daniel Shinoff seem to think that
no one has any right to examine their specific actions on behalf of CVESD or any other public
entity.

SASH wants the court to stifle defendant’s right to comment in public regarding matters of
public interest, but does not want the court to consider for even one minute that it might be
true:

Defendant, on her website, accuses SASH lawyers of obstruction of justice, and this lawsuit is
about SASH’s efforts to prove that her accusations are false. Clearly, it is necessary to talk
about defendant’s notification of the firm in or about January 2004 that Daniel Shinoff and
Kelly Angell were obstructing justice, and to discuss the almost immediate departure of
founding partner Robert Gallagher. But this topic of discussion seems to be precisely the
reason that Ray Artiano walked out of his deposition.

IV.         SASH MADE NO ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENTS
IN ITS COMPLAINT BEFORE FILING SUIT

Ray Artiano claimed in his deposition:

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’s deposition:

“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 actions?
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 law --
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)

3) SASH 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 with her relationship with her lawyer, Thomas Gill.

V.        SASH’S ATTITUDE TOWARD PARTNER WHO ABRUPTLY LEFT IN 2004 INDICATES
AN AWARENESS OF GUILT

Shortly after Defendant reported to Stutz, Gallagher, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz that one of its
partners, Daniel Shinoff, had obstructed justice in her case, founding partner Robert
Gallagher left the firm and the firm changed its name. Anytime a partner leaves, a firm would,
of course, be embarrassed. But when a firm is trying to clear its name through litigation
regarding what it claims is defamation, it must offer something other than blind faith in its
employees to prove that it has been defamed. Was it a personality conflict? A disagreement
over money? A loss of interest in the type of litigation being done? Any of these would be
less embarrassing than obstruction of justice. But SASH is being coy about this subject,
instead of being forthcoming.   SASH brought up the name of Robert Gallagher in its lawsuit,
but it doesn’t want to talk about him.

Page 49 line 8-25 and page 50 lines 1-3
Q.        … Did Bob Gallagher leave your firm because your firm was obstructing jus- -- was
supporting Daniel Shinoff's and Kelly Angell's obstruction of justice?
A.   No, that is not why Bob Gallagher left our firm.
Q.   Why did he leave?
A.   You are not entitled to that information. That is protected by Mr. Gallagher's privacy
rights.
Q.   Would you -- were you sorry to see him leave?
MR. SHINOFF: I'm going to object that that is irrelevant.
THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not going to engage in this line of questioning, because you seek
to invade the privacy rights of an employee of my firm, an ex-employee, rather.
BY MS. LARKINS:   Q.   I'm not sure that you have a privacy right to cover up obstruction of
justice.
A.   If you continue making statements such as the one -- such as the one that you just made,
the deposition will conclude rather quickly.

SASH does not want defendant’s website to say that founding partner Robert Gallagher
suddenly departed after being informed of obstruction of justice by Daniel Shinoff. Yet this is
a true fact. Surely there can be no more embarrassing reason for a founding partner to
leave a law firm than his belief that his partners condoned obstruction of justice. So why
doesn’t SASH reveal another reason, if it exists?   A Superior Court deposition would surely
be an appropriate forum for revealing this information. It appears that SASH is unable to do
that, and this is not surprising.   The connection between defendant’s report of Daniel Shinoff’
s obstruction of justice, and the departure of Robert Gallagher from his own firm, is very
close in time. Defendant’s complaint to the firm provided Gallagher with an overpowering
reason to leave.

Page 49 lines 7-25
7          Q.    Did Bob Gallagher leave your firm because your firm was obstructing jus- -- was
supporting Daniel Shinoff's and Kelly Angell's obstruction of justice?
A.   No, that is not why Bob Gallagher left our firm.
Q.   Why did he leave?
A.   You are not entitled to that information. That is protected by Mr. Gallagher's privacy
rights.
Q.   Would you -- were you sorry to see him leave?
MR. SHINOFF: I'm going to object that that is irrelevant.
THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not going to engage in this line of questioning, because you seek
to invade the privacy rights of an employee of my firm, an ex-employee, rather.
BY MS. LARKINS: Q.   I'm not sure that you have a privacy right to cover up obstruction of
justice.

Page 50   lines 1-11
A.   If you continue making statements such as the one -- such as the one that you just
made, the deposition will conclude rather quickly.
Q.   Well, that's too bad, because you are trying to -- you are suing me for saying that your
firm obstructed justice; and yet, you claim that you have never seen that Exhibit Number 4,
which was part of a complaint I sent to your law firm just about weeks before Bob Gallagher
left the firm. I -- you are the plaintiff here. You are the one that wanted to talk about this in
court, about how you don't obstruct justice.

Page 50 lines 14-25
MS. LARKINS: …I think defamation is a heinous action; and I think people who do it
intentionally are heinous. If I have said anything on my website about your law firm or you as
an individual, Mr. Artiano, or you as an individual, Mr. Shinoff, I want to apologize. I want to
reimburse you for any losses financially it has cost you. I want to take down the website, put
a big apology in its place. If all this is, as Mr. Shinoff seems to be saying, a fantasy on my
part, please stay and explain it to me, how I'm wrong.
Your lawyer, Mr. Shinoff, and your other, Kelly Angell, obstructed justice in an

Page 51 lines 1-25
unconscionable fashion in my case and in several other cases. Intimidation seems to be a
favorite tactic.
THE WITNESS: Please ask a question.
BY MS. LARKINS: Q.   Okay. If your law firm is so great, why did Bob Gallagher leave?
A.   I just explained to you that I would never talk about an employee, who has departed the
firm. I can tell you this, however: It had absolutely nothing at all to do with you.
Q.   Uhm. Do you always refer to Bob Gallagher as an employee of the firm or do you
sometimes refer to him as a founder, a partner?
A.   He was a founder of the firm. He was a partner, actually, a shareholder. In law firms, we
generally refer to partners, however.
Q.   He started the firm without you, correct?
A.   No.
Q.   You were there at the very beginning?
A.   Yes.
Q.   How many lawyers were in the firm when you founded it?
A.   Three of us.
Q.   Okay. But now you refer to him as an employee?
A.   An ex-employee, yes. I am an employee of the
Page 52 lines 1-25
1     firm, as well.
Q.   Do you sort of -- are you uncomfortable talking about Bob Gallagher? A.   In California,
everybody has a constitutional right to privacy. And --
Q.   Well, that's not what I'm talking about. Really, it struck me when you referred to him as
an employee. It seemed like you were trying to diminish his importance.
MR. SHINOFF: There is no question pending.
THE WITNESS: I know.
BY MS. LARKINS:
Q.   How many lawyers do you know that have founded a firm and then left it?
MR. SHINOFF: I'm going to object that the question is irrelevant. Don't respond, please.
MS. LARKINS: You're instructing him not to answer?
MR. SHINOFF: I am. I don't see how it's calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant
evidence.

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).

SASH and Daniel Shinoff were properly served under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025
(1)(1) (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff and Daniel Shinoff, being properly served, are therefore legally
obligated to appear and testify, as well as to produce the requested documents. Both a
Notice of Deposition and a subpoena were served on each of them (Exhibit 1).

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 (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 7). Thus, Movant seeks an order
compelling Plaintiff’s and Daniel Shinoff’s testimony and production of documents.
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)).

VIII.        GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE MADE; SASH REFUSED TO MEET AND
CONFER

As stated in Maura Larkins’ declaration, Defendant made numerous attempts to meet and
confer before filing this motion. SASH refused to discuss any aspect of the discovery
process with Defendant. Exhibit 6 is the only response made by SASH, and it merely states
that it received documents, and that it will not respond to phone calls.

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).

Here, Daniel Shinoff did not seek a stay order or a protective order against his deposition
before failing to appear or at any other time, whether based on a showing of good cause or
otherwise. SASH’s designated representative did not seek a protective order at any time
since walking out of his deposition on November 8, 2007.

X.        SASH REFUSES TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH THE INFORMATION SHE
NEEDS TO DEFEND HERSELF

SASH has brought this suit with the apparent intention of keeping the evidence hidden. It
refuses to answer questions, and its lawyer who is most prominently discussed on the
website in question refuses to be deposed, and walks out when defendant says she
would take down her website if SASH would give her some evidence that her statements
are false.

Ray Artiano deposition, Exhibit 2, Page 52, lines 21 -25
MS. LARKINS: You know, we wouldn't even have to continue with this case. If you just
gave me just a little flicker of a doubt about my allegations, I'd take my site down right
now. You are just acting so guilty. You are acting like you are covering up.

Page 53 lines 1-18
THE WITNESS: Are you going to continue to ask questions or are you going to continue
to make speeches? If the latter, as I said before, we are going to end the deposition. I'm
not here to listen to you make speeches.
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.

PAGE 54 LINES 6-12
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.

XI.        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.

XIII.        SASH HAS FOR FOUR YEARS REFUSED TO PRODUCE THESE 31 BATE-
STAMPED PAGES

On July 13, 2004 I faxed the documents in Exhibits 3 and 4 to Stutz law firm, attention of
Kelly Angell. When SASH received a new subpoena and Notice of Deposition five months
ago, it had no credibility in saying it couldn’t find them. It has even less credibility now,
five months later.

“LARKINS: "Your law firm has had years to produce these documents; and, apparently,
they must be very harmful to your case or you would have produced them."
SHINOFF: "Well, you can entertain whatever fantasy you wish to engage in; and I know
that you are prone to fantasies..." (Exhibit 2, Page 11 lines 8-14).

XII.        GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS

The judge and jury in this case do not share defendant’s direct knowledge of the events it
concerns. They need proof. Testimony and documents are required so that defendant
can prove her case and defend herself.

Mr. Artiano and Mr. Shinoff failed to produce 31 Bate-stamped documents belonging to a
single set which was clearly described and clearly necessary to the case. The
documents requested by defendant are indisputably and clearly related to this case,
since they are part and parcel of the claims on defendant’s website regarding SASH’s
criminal behavior during the previous case. These 31 documents were individually
removed from a single Bate-stamped set and set aside and either lost, hidden or
destroyed by SASH when documents were produced for defendant’s administrative
hearing in 2002.   Exhibit 1, clearly describes the documents:

“Bate-stamped with the numbers 5, 6, 9, 11, 13 through 19 inclusive, 24, 27, 28, 39, 44,
48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 63, 64, 65, 77 through 83 inclusive, which were collected and Bate-
stamped by Daniel Shinoff and/or other agents of SASH in or about the fall of 2001,
regarding a tort claim filed by Maura Larkins against Chula Vista Elementary School
District on October 4, 2001. The Bate-stamps begin with the number 1; (not 01; or 001;)
and continue through 87. Please be particularly careful to bring the documents Bate-
stamped 39 and 55.”

XIV.        SASH TRICK REGARDING MAURA LARKINS’ DEPOSITION DATE

For Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, trickery takes the place of the practice of law. Kelly
Angell, working under the supervision of Daniel Shinoff, Kelly Angell first obtained an
order (see Exhibit 9), for an October 28, 2004 deposition date for Maura Larkins, for
which Larkins was available. Larkins agreed to the date, and believed that issue was
resolved, but Kelly Angell went to a then-moot ex parte conference and got the court to
change the deposition to a date on which she knew Larkins was unavailable.) Angell
obtained the change from October 28 to October 25, 2004 in an effort to prevent a fair
and just outcome. Stutz' goal was to subvert justice through manipulation, secrecy, and
abuse of the court. Kelly Angell denied to the court that she had received the fax in
which Larkins reported her unavailability, and demanded that Larkins show proof of
faxing. Larkins produced the fax transmission report (Exhibit 9).

XV.        SASH WAS ABUSIVE IN DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT

SASH attorneys Jeffery Morris and Kelly Angell successfully opposed all deposition dates
that would be convenient for the deponent, but that was not the full extent of their abusive
behavior. Along with Bernard Rohrbacher and Michael Hersh of CTA, and Deborah
Garvin, they also found another way to make a deposition impossible: verbal abuse,
preventing the deponent, who was representing herself, to speak as counsel, in addition
to speaking as deponent (Exhibit 10).

SASH’s deposition of Maura Larkins (Exhibit 10), and many other depositions involving
SASH, show that SASH attorneys engage in excessive discussion in addition to asking
questions, far more than Maura Larkins did in her deposition of Ray Artiano.
SASH demanded that Larkins bring to her deposition every document that she had
produced to them, which constituted several boxes of transcripts and documents, even
though the deposition took place in SASH’s office, where all the produced documents
were readily available.

Maura Larkins’ request for documents to be brought to SASH’s deposition, on the other
hand, was small and reasonable. Larkins asked for 31 documents from a single
Bate-stamped set. SASH contemptuously refused to produce the documents.
These 31 pages have been kept hidden, in defiance of the law, for many years,
throughout defendant’s administrative hearing and Superior Court cases. SASH’
s request that defendant bring all documents was mere harassment, with no
possible benefit to SASH’s case, while defendant’s current request is simple,
small, and crucial to her case.

XVI.        SASH’S REPEATED TACTIC IS TO REFUSE TO COOPERATE IN THE
DISCOVERY PROCESS

SASH’s attitude in the case discussed on defendant’s website was shocking; SASH made
clear (Exhibit 11) that it would not answer questions because if the court found out the
truth, it would not be in their client’s interest. To use the exact words of SASH
attorney Kelly Angell to Judge Nevitt during the discovery conference on
December 31, 2002: “..I JUST CAN’T ANSWER THEM [INTERROGATORIES]. I CAN’T
ANSWER THEM AND PROTECT MY CLIENT” (Exhibit 11, page 3, lines 7-9).

XVII.        DISMISSAL OF PREVIOUS CASE

In the case that introduced defendant and plaintiff to each other, and which is at the core
of the present litigation, GIC 781970, defendant’s lawsuit was thrown out because she
failed to file a motion for protective order within 22 days. Clearly, SASH is aware of the
sanctions applied to in pro per litigants for such a failure, but believes that it will be held
to a lower standard. It appears that the reason given by SASH for walking out of its
deposition was merely a ruse. If it had been done in good faith, SASH would have met
and conferred with defendant regarding its complaints, and would have filed a protective
motion.

Stutz law firm avoided any fact-finding by the court in the previous case, even to the point
of withdrawing its own motion for summary judgment, knowing that would give defendant a
chance to report subornation of perjury in the declaration prepared for and signed by the
sheriff of Santa Barbara.   Commander Sam Gross stated in his deposition on November
17, 2004 that the declaration was incorrect. Later, Mr. Gross followed up with a letter to
that effect. SASH never produced a single document in that case.

XVIII.                SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE

In light of Daniel Shinoff’s failure to attend his own deposition, and lacking any
reasonable excuse for his failure to file an objection to the deposition beforehand, and
Ray Artiano’s walking out of his deposition with no reasonable excuse, and the failure of
each of them to produce documents, sanctions are appropriate. Defendant has incurred
additional time and costs due to the need to seek an order to compel discovery. The
pertinent law reads as follows:

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction
under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed
the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated,
unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust”
(CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section 2025.450 (2) (c) (1)).

The Court's authority to impose sanctions is not limited to an award of attorney fees
incurred in connection with obtaining the order, or to an award of attorney fees generally.
It may impose such sanctions as it deems appropriate.

Defendant believes that it is too early to apply terminating sanctions in this case, but
requests that the court consider applying terminating sanctions if Plaintiff fails to execute
a 180 degree change of direction in its attitude and behavior regarding the discovery
phase of this case.

Defendant asks the court to impose a sanction of $100.00 on Plaintiff on the basis of its
flagrant contempt for the discovery process, and the apparent lack of any intention of
providing any type of support for the claims in its complaint. This lawsuit appears to be
malicious prosecution pure and simple, intended to harm and intimidate, and a misuse of
the justice system of California.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff and Daniel Shinoff were properly served. Daniel Shinoff failed to appear without
a valid objection or a protective order showing good cause. SASH representative Ray
Artiano walked out of his deposition and failed thereafter to file the protective order which
his counsel claimed would be sought. Defendant’s good-faith attempt at resolving the
issue has failed. Therefore, the Court should grant defendant LARKINS’ motion to
compel Plaintiff’s deposition and the deposition of Daniel Shinoff, and the production of
records by Plaintiff and Daniel Shinoff, and move this case toward a conclusion.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: April 3, 2008                           __________________________________
                                  Maura Larkins, defendant in pro per

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1        October 24, 2007 deposition notice and request for documents,
subpoena, and proof of service of SASH and Daniel Shinoff

EXHIBIT 2        Nov. 8, 2007 certified copy of deposition of Ray Artiano, designated
representative of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz

EXHIBIT 3        July 13, 2004 and July 22, 2004 letters to Kelly Angell regarding
faxed documents collected by Shinoff and Bate-stamped by Shinoff or associate,
and produced by Mark Bresee. These documents were faxed to SASH in 2004 and
again on March 26, 2008.

EXHIBIT 4         Bate-stamped documents that clarify which documents are missing;
faxed with the letters in EXHIBIT 3 to Stutz, Artiano,Shinoff & Holtz on July 13, 2004
and again on March 26, 2008.

EXH I BIT 5        March 26, 2008 and March 28, 2008 meet and confer letters

Exhibit 6        March 27, 2008 SASH letter acknowledging receipt of meet-and-confer
letter, but stating that SASH will not respond to phone calls.

EXHIBIT 7          March 27, 2008 follow-up letter to SASH asking if it would respond to
meet and confer letter. [SASH never responded to this or any other attempt by
defendant to meet and confer.]

EXHIBIT 8        October 5, 2007 Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins
COMPLAINT

Exhibit 9       October 2004 documentation of SASH trick on the court regarding
Maura Larkins’ deposition

EXHIBIT 10        October 25, 2004 and November 11, 2004 SASH deposition of
Maura Larkins

EXHIBIT 11        December 31, 2002 transcript of discovery conference

Home

Why This Website

SDCOE

CVESD

Castle Park Elem

Law Enforcement

CTA

CVE

Stutz Artiano Shinoff

Silence is Golden

Schools and Violence

Office Admin Hearings

Larkins OAH Hearing

S D Education Report Blog

Site Map

Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins Defamation lawsuit

See also: NEW Motion to compel Daniel Shinoff
February 6, 2009

Why did Judge Judith Hayes deny this motion? Perhaps for the same reason that a year later she began to
make odd injunctions in this case. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis boycotted this judge, which is the reason
Judge Hayes is now in civil court. Maura Larkins agrees with Bonnie Dumanis that this judge can not be trusted
to apply the law appropriately.

Maura Larkins deposition

San Diego Education
Report