Discovery abuses by Stutz and CTA
Who can blame them? The court lets them get away with it.
Who can blame them? The court lets them get away with it.
) Case No. GIC 781970
) Judge: Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept: 64
) Hearing date: March 17, 2004 8:15 AM
)
) PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
) IN SUPPORT OF
) EX PARTE APPLICATION
) FOR
) PROTECTIVE ORDER
) AGAINST THE TAKING OF
) DISCOVERY BY
) DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: 1/24/2002
) TRIAL DATE: Oct 22,2004
)
) Judge: Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept: 64
) Hearing date: March 17, 2004 8:15 AM
)
) PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
) IN SUPPORT OF
) EX PARTE APPLICATION
) FOR
) PROTECTIVE ORDER
) AGAINST THE TAKING OF
) DISCOVERY BY
) DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
) COMPLAINT FILED: 1/24/2002
) TRIAL DATE: Oct 22,2004
)
A large amount of discovery was produced by Maura Larkins while CVESD
lawyers at Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, and Deborah Garvin, and CTA
lawyers Beverly Tucker and Michael Hersh covered up the truth
lawyers at Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, and Deborah Garvin, and CTA
lawyers Beverly Tucker and Michael Hersh covered up the truth
September 2004--TWO YEARS AFTER THE CASE WAS FILED:
Special Interrogatories answered:
Documents produced:
Special Interrogatories answered:
Documents produced:
MAURA LARKINS
Plaintiff in pro per
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 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of her ex parte application
for a Protective Order from Discovery until Plaintiff has been able to take ONE COMPLETE DEPOSITION from
Virginia Boyd.
OVERVIEW
The Court’s decisions in this case have been one-sided regarding discovery. The Court has granted every
protective order requested by Defendants, and has allowed Defendants access to Plaintiff’s medical records.
The discovery process has become extremely unbalanced, with a tremendous amount of discovery taken by
Defendants, and almost none taken by Plaintiff.
On November 25, 2002, the Court granted a protective order against depositions in this case in order to shield
taxpayers’ money (specifically, the funds of Chula Vista Elementary School District) from excessive expenses.
However, the school district is no longer involved in this case. Since there is no longer any public entity liable
for any damages in this case, there is no longer any cause for allowing Defendants to continue their abusive
manipulation of the discovery process.
After waiting patiently for over two years, Plaintiff asks ONLY for ONE deposition: the deposition noticed for
Monday, March 22, 2004, of Virginia Boyd, President of Chula Vista Elementary Education Association,
including follow-up questions and, if necessary, motions to compel testimony or produce documents requested
in the notice.
SETTLEMENT IMPOSSIBLE
It appears that progress in this case is impossible because Defendants do not believe they will ever have to
submit to discovery. Defendants have been protected from discovery long enough. After two years of
successful efforts by Defendants to hide the truth, Plaintiff believes it is time to begin taking discovery from
Defendants.
HISTORY OF DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE:
I. September 23, 2002
II. November 25, 2002
III. December 2002
IV. January 22, 2003
V. June 13, 2004
VI. July 11, 2003
During those two months, nine days, Kelly Angell kept quiet about the fact that she illegally possessed the
records, and studied them to such an extent that when she was forced to give them up, she had to admit that
she had made so many notations in them that they could not be given to Plaintiff because they contained Kelly
Angell’s work product. Ms. Angell gave the records to Kaiser on condition that Kaiser destroy them.
VII. January 28, 2004
VIII. February 26, 2004
IX. March 1, 2004
X. March 4, 2004
XI. March 9, 2004
XII. March 9, 2004
XIII. March 10, 2004
XIV. March 12, 2004
Plaintiff in pro per
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 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of her ex parte application
for a Protective Order from Discovery until Plaintiff has been able to take ONE COMPLETE DEPOSITION from
Virginia Boyd.
OVERVIEW
The Court’s decisions in this case have been one-sided regarding discovery. The Court has granted every
protective order requested by Defendants, and has allowed Defendants access to Plaintiff’s medical records.
The discovery process has become extremely unbalanced, with a tremendous amount of discovery taken by
Defendants, and almost none taken by Plaintiff.
On November 25, 2002, the Court granted a protective order against depositions in this case in order to shield
taxpayers’ money (specifically, the funds of Chula Vista Elementary School District) from excessive expenses.
However, the school district is no longer involved in this case. Since there is no longer any public entity liable
for any damages in this case, there is no longer any cause for allowing Defendants to continue their abusive
manipulation of the discovery process.
After waiting patiently for over two years, Plaintiff asks ONLY for ONE deposition: the deposition noticed for
Monday, March 22, 2004, of Virginia Boyd, President of Chula Vista Elementary Education Association,
including follow-up questions and, if necessary, motions to compel testimony or produce documents requested
in the notice.
SETTLEMENT IMPOSSIBLE
It appears that progress in this case is impossible because Defendants do not believe they will ever have to
submit to discovery. Defendants have been protected from discovery long enough. After two years of
successful efforts by Defendants to hide the truth, Plaintiff believes it is time to begin taking discovery from
Defendants.
HISTORY OF DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE:
I. September 23, 2002
II. November 25, 2002
III. December 2002
IV. January 22, 2003
V. June 13, 2004
VI. July 11, 2003
During those two months, nine days, Kelly Angell kept quiet about the fact that she illegally possessed the
records, and studied them to such an extent that when she was forced to give them up, she had to admit that
she had made so many notations in them that they could not be given to Plaintiff because they contained Kelly
Angell’s work product. Ms. Angell gave the records to Kaiser on condition that Kaiser destroy them.
VII. January 28, 2004
VIII. February 26, 2004
IX. March 1, 2004
X. March 4, 2004
XI. March 9, 2004
XII. March 9, 2004
XIII. March 10, 2004
XIV. March 12, 2004
Plaintiff served responses to 100 Special Interrogatories,
and produced hundreds of Documents
The Court granted Defendants a protective order against
depositions.
Plaintiff served responses to 14 supplemental special
interrogatories.
The Court granted Defendants access to one year of
Plaintiff’s medical records.
The Court granted Defendants a protective order
against written discovery.
Compex Attorney Service illegally kept Plaintiff in the dark
regarding requests, which contained NO limitations as to
dates, by Kelly Angell for Plaintiff’s medical records.
Plaintiff learned that her records had been delivered on
May 2, 2003 to Kelly Angell, but Plaintiff did not receive the
copies until over two months later.
and produced hundreds of Documents
The Court granted Defendants a protective order against
depositions.
Plaintiff served responses to 14 supplemental special
interrogatories.
The Court granted Defendants access to one year of
Plaintiff’s medical records.
The Court granted Defendants a protective order
against written discovery.
Compex Attorney Service illegally kept Plaintiff in the dark
regarding requests, which contained NO limitations as to
dates, by Kelly Angell for Plaintiff’s medical records.
Plaintiff learned that her records had been delivered on
May 2, 2003 to Kelly Angell, but Plaintiff did not receive the
copies until over two months later.
The numbers:
PLAINTIFF [Maura Larkins]: 129
DEFENDANTS [CVESD, et al]: 0
PLAINTIFF: 300+
DEFENDANTS: 0
DEFENDANTS [CVESD, et al]: 0
PLAINTIFF: 300+
DEFENDANTS: 0
[CTA] Association Defendants filed a Motion to Compel answers to Special
Interrogatories.
Daniel Shinoff issued a subpoena for police records,
which are not relevant to his clients’ case, in
the name of Chula Vista Elementary School District,
which is not even a party in this case.
Plaintiff served responses to 15 Special Interrogatories.
Defendants demanded supplemental answers to 11 Interrogatories.
Plaintiff offered to pay TRIPLE the amount of sanctions requested by
Association Defendants when Virginia Boyd’s March 22, 2004 deposition is
complete. Association Defendants accepted the offer, but refused to take
the request for sanctions off calendar. TRIPLE sanctions were not enough
for CTA; they wanted (and got) QUADRUPLE sanctions. Happily, the Court
did not allow oral arguments, saving Plaintiff $6,000.
Defendants propounded 32 more Special Interrogatories.
Defendants propounded 27 Requests for Admission.
The Court awarded sanctions to Defendants [!!??]
Interrogatories.
Daniel Shinoff issued a subpoena for police records,
which are not relevant to his clients’ case, in
the name of Chula Vista Elementary School District,
which is not even a party in this case.
Plaintiff served responses to 15 Special Interrogatories.
Defendants demanded supplemental answers to 11 Interrogatories.
Plaintiff offered to pay TRIPLE the amount of sanctions requested by
Association Defendants when Virginia Boyd’s March 22, 2004 deposition is
complete. Association Defendants accepted the offer, but refused to take
the request for sanctions off calendar. TRIPLE sanctions were not enough
for CTA; they wanted (and got) QUADRUPLE sanctions. Happily, the Court
did not allow oral arguments, saving Plaintiff $6,000.
Defendants propounded 32 more Special Interrogatories.
Defendants propounded 27 Requests for Admission.
The Court awarded sanctions to Defendants [!!??]
Plaintiff asks the court to act to bring about equity between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the taking
of discovery.
DEFENDANTS’ ABUSE OF DISCOVERY
Plaintiff is inundated with requests for discovery. The avalanche of useless discovery Defendants are
currently propounding to Plaintiff serves only to delay progress in this case. Defendants are trying to
keep Plaintiff so busy answering questions that she will not have any time to propound discovery
herself. Defendants are now, and have been for the past two years, using discovery to burden and
harass Plaintiff.
Kelly Angell stated succinctly well over a year ago, on December 31, 2002, regarding Special
Interrogatories, “…I JUST CAN’T ANSWER THEM. I CAN’T ANSWER THEM AND PROTECT MY
CLIENT.” (Discovery conference, page 3 lines 7 through 9, Exhibit 1). Ms. Angell has repeated this
statement many times.
Defendants have made it clear that they have no intention of allowing Plaintiff to take discovery. They
won’t settle this case until they are forced to submit to discovery.
DATED: March 15, 2004
Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in Pro Per
of discovery.
DEFENDANTS’ ABUSE OF DISCOVERY
Plaintiff is inundated with requests for discovery. The avalanche of useless discovery Defendants are
currently propounding to Plaintiff serves only to delay progress in this case. Defendants are trying to
keep Plaintiff so busy answering questions that she will not have any time to propound discovery
herself. Defendants are now, and have been for the past two years, using discovery to burden and
harass Plaintiff.
Kelly Angell stated succinctly well over a year ago, on December 31, 2002, regarding Special
Interrogatories, “…I JUST CAN’T ANSWER THEM. I CAN’T ANSWER THEM AND PROTECT MY
CLIENT.” (Discovery conference, page 3 lines 7 through 9, Exhibit 1). Ms. Angell has repeated this
statement many times.
Defendants have made it clear that they have no intention of allowing Plaintiff to take discovery. They
won’t settle this case until they are forced to submit to discovery.
DATED: March 15, 2004
Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in Pro Per
| Discovery produced by Maura Larkins: |
TOTALS TO DATE (TWO YEARS AFTER THIS CASE WAS FILED):
Special Interrogatories answered:
Documents produced:
Special Interrogatories answered:
Documents produced:
PLAINTIFF [Maura Larkins]: 129
DEFENDANTS [CVESD, et al]: 0
PLAINTIFF: 300+
DEFENDANTS: 0
DEFENDANTS [CVESD, et al]: 0
PLAINTIFF: 300+
DEFENDANTS: 0
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
March 24, 2004
Deborah K. Garvin
McCormick & Mitchell by FAX only to: 619 235 9432
Dear Ms. Garvin:
You flatter Kelly Angell when you characterize her recent mailing to me as a “response to
special interrogatories, set one.” I served that interrogatory on Ms. Donlan on July 19, 2003!
The response is purely a sham, of absolutely no legal significance. I dismissed Ms. Donlan
from the case shortly after I served the interrogatory. (Later I re-filed the cause of action.)
Obviously, given the fact that I served a complaint on him, I was able to find out Mr. Carlson’s
address by another means. Just as obviously, I have no need of his phone number since he is
represented by counsel.
Kelly Angell’s total number of responses to special interrogatories still stands at ZERO.
It makes one suspect that Ms. Angell’s clients have something to hide, doesn’t it? I consider it
to be scandalous that lawyers representing a public entity have so little respect for the law. I
think that Bob Gallagher left that law firm, and Sidney (Sydney?) Stutz ended his “of counsel”
status with the firm, at a very good time. (I just went to the firm website to see how to spell Mr.
Stutz’s first name, and discovered that Mr. Stutz’s first name is nowhere to be found on any
part of the site!) I have come to believe that Misters Stutz and Gallagher have, and have had,
a different approach to the practice of law than that of their erstwhile partners.
Please call any time you have a question.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
Deborah K. Garvin
McCormick & Mitchell by FAX only to: 619 235 9432
Dear Ms. Garvin:
You flatter Kelly Angell when you characterize her recent mailing to me as a “response to
special interrogatories, set one.” I served that interrogatory on Ms. Donlan on July 19, 2003!
The response is purely a sham, of absolutely no legal significance. I dismissed Ms. Donlan
from the case shortly after I served the interrogatory. (Later I re-filed the cause of action.)
Obviously, given the fact that I served a complaint on him, I was able to find out Mr. Carlson’s
address by another means. Just as obviously, I have no need of his phone number since he is
represented by counsel.
Kelly Angell’s total number of responses to special interrogatories still stands at ZERO.
It makes one suspect that Ms. Angell’s clients have something to hide, doesn’t it? I consider it
to be scandalous that lawyers representing a public entity have so little respect for the law. I
think that Bob Gallagher left that law firm, and Sidney (Sydney?) Stutz ended his “of counsel”
status with the firm, at a very good time. (I just went to the firm website to see how to spell Mr.
Stutz’s first name, and discovered that Mr. Stutz’s first name is nowhere to be found on any
part of the site!) I have come to believe that Misters Stutz and Gallagher have, and have had,
a different approach to the practice of law than that of their erstwhile partners.
Please call any time you have a question.
Yours truly,
Maura Larkins
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report