 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 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 |
| mauralarkins.com |
SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT
PAGE 40
1 because it's not -- I'm not sure of the time line and -- so
2 there was a Hispanic principal, yes, but I can't tell you
3 when based on the time line you're coming up with.
4 Q. Do you remember her name?
5 A. Mariana.
6 Q. Okay. And do you know -- and did there come a
7 time that she left Castle Park?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you know why she left?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did she get along well with the staff?
12 A. Yes.
YET SHE LEFT. SHE MUST HAVE HAD A PROBLEM. SHE WAS HISPANIC.
TIM ALLEN WASN’T.
13 Q. Did Oscar Perez get along well with the staff?
14 A. I wouldn't know with everybody.
15 Q. Did he get along well with you?
16 A. I got along with him just fine.
17 Q. Did he get in trouble for spending too much money?
18 A. I would -- I don't know.
19 Q. Did he get a lot of pressure from a clique of
20 upper grade teachers to spend money as they wished?
21 A. I have no idea.
22 Q. Did he also get a lot of pressure from a clique of
23 lower grade teachers to spend money as they wished?
24 A. I have no idea.
25 Q. Okay. And then after Mariana who came next?
Page 41
1 A. I believe Ollie Matos.
2 Q. Was it Tim Allen?
3 A. No, it was not.
4 Q. Was Tim Allen ever principal of Castle Park
5 Elementary?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And Ollie Matos is principal now, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. So Tim Allen had -- okay. So Tim Allen
10 came before Ollie Matos?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And -- okay. And how did you get along
13 with Tim Allen?
14 A. Fine.
15 Q. Did you spend a lot of time talking to him in his
16 office?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you consider yourself one of the more
19 influential teachers at Castle Park as far as influencing the
20 direction the school goes in at least until Ollie Matos came
21 along?
22 A. Possibly.
page 42
1 Q. Who was influential in getting the Kingdoms
2 program ended?
3 A. I do not know.
4 Q. Was there a vote to get it ended?
5 A. There was a vote, but I don't know that that ended
6 it.
IT SURE DIDN’T!!!
7 Q. Okay. When the Kingdoms program began, did you
8 like the idea?
9 A. Not particularly.
10 Q. Did you write a petition to have it only be 45
11 minutes a month?
12 A. Did I write a petition? No.
13 Q. Did you sign a petition to have it only 45 minutes
14 a month?
15 A. I don't recall.
SHE REMEMBERS THAT SHE DIDN’T WRITE THE PETITION, BUT DOESN’T
REMEMBER WHETHER SHE SIGNED IT OR NOT. SHE’S LYING. SHE SIGNED
IT.
16 Q. Okay. Was there a time that the staff voted with
17 a secret ballot and voted to end the Kingdoms program?
18 A. I don't recall.
19 Q. Did the staff/parent management team overrule the
20 teachers and say that they would have to have Kingdoms?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. When that happened did you find that a
23 little troubling given that the staff decision was overruled
24 arbitrarily by the S.P.M.T.?
25 A. I'm not sure what you mean by troubling.
Page 43
1 Q. Was there anything you didn't like about that
2 decision when they overruled the teachers' decision?
3 A. Probably that Kingdoms was back.
Process didn’t bother her regarding Kingdoms, only regarding Ollie Matos!
4 Q. But actually the process by which the decision was
5 made didn't bother you?
11 Q. Okay. How well did you get along with Ollie Matos?
12 A. In a professional manner.
13 Q. How well did the rest of the staff get along with
14 Ollie Matos in staff meetings?
24 Q. Were hostile emotions expressed by members of the
25 staff toward Ollie Matos during the time -- during any staff
page 44
1 meeting you attended at Castle Park?
2 A. Define hostile, please.
3 Q. Raised voice, saying things over and over, an
4 angry voice, angry tone of voice?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Was that in the beginning when Ollie Matos first
7 came or did that develop later?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. Okay. Why were people angry at Ollie Matos?
13 Q. To your knowledge, why were these hostile -- to
14 your knowledge, why were staff members hostile toward Ollie
15 Matos during staff meetings you attended?
16 A. They were upset with the way things were being done.
17 Q. In what sense?
18 A. That staff and parents were misinformed on issues.
19 Q. What were those issues?
20 A. I don't recall them all.
21 Q. But there were several issues?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you recall a single one of those issues?
24 A. The computer lab.
25 Q. Can you recall any others?
Page 45
1 A. There was an issue of coming up with after school
2 activities that would use summer school funds.
3 Q. Can you think of any other issues?
4 A. Just misrepresentation, things said to one person
5 that was not the same to another.
Yet this is exactly how she proceeded with my case
10 Q. Were these misrepresentations about the summer
11 school funds?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Were they about the computer lab?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were they about anything else that you can recall?
16 A. Not to my -- not that I can recall.
17 Q. Okay. About what percentage of the staff was
18 angry at Ollie Matos about misrepresentations about the
19 computer lab?
24 A. I wouldn't be able to give you a percentage.
THEY CLAIMED THEY REPRESENTED THE WHOLE STAFF
25 Q. Did you feel very much -- were you -- were you
page 46
1 angry at Ollie Matos about misrepresentations about the
2 computer lab?
5 Q. At any time.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were you angry at Ollie Matos about
8 misrepresentations about the computer lab before you were
9 transferred out of Castle Park Elementary School?
10 A. What's the question again?
11 Q. Were you angry at Ollie Matos about
12 misrepresentations about the computer lab before you were
13 transferred out of Castle Park?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How did you express your anger toward Ollie Matos
16 regarding misrepresentations about the computer lab?
17 A. I asked for clarification and reasons for what he
18 wanted to do.
19 Q. Did you do this sometimes in private meetings
20 between yourself and Ollie Matos in his office?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. About how many times would you say you met with
23 him regarding this issue in his office?
24 A. I have no idea.
25 Q. Was it more like two or more like 20?
Page 47
Very bad memory, the worst memory of all in a very competitive contest
1 A. I have no idea. I discussed many issues with
2 Ollie Matos.
3 Q. About how often did you discuss any issue with
4 Ollie Matos in his office?
5 A. I have no idea.
6 Q. Was it once a week? Twice a week?
7 A. I have no idea.
8 Q. Could you say for certain that it was more than
9 once a month?
10 A. For certain? No.
11 Q. Okay. Could you say for certain that it was more
12 than once a year?
13 A. Yes.
16 Do you
17 think that -- do you believe that there is a long history at
18 Castle Park of teachers being removed without being told the
19 reason?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you believe that I was told the reason when I
22 was removed from Castle Park?
23 A. I have no idea.
24 Q. Do you believe that it is wrong to remove a
25 teacher from a school without telling that teacher the reason?
Page 48
1 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
2 Calls for legal conclusion. Incomplete hypothetical. And
3 insofar as you're calling for a legal conclusion, it's
4 calling for a guess because this person's not qualified so
5 far as a legal expert.
6 MS. LARKINS: I'm not asking for a legal opinion.
7 I'm asking for Ms. Myers' opinion.
8 Q. Do you believe that it is wrong to remove a
9 teacher from his or her position without telling that teacher
10 the reason?
15 THE WITNESS: What do you mean by remove?
16 BY MS. LARKINS:
17 Q. To tell that teacher not to return to the
18 classroom or perhaps to -- well, leave it at that, to tell
19 the teacher not to return to the classroom.
20 A. Okay. So the original question is what?
21 Q. Do you believe it's wrong to remove a teacher from
22 his or her position without telling that teacher the reason?
23 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Incomplete hypothetical.
24 If you mean the person's paid? The person's not paid? I
25 mean, this is a wildly incomplete hypothetical.
Page 49
1 MS. LARKINS: Whether they're paid or unpaid,
2 either way.
3 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Compound question.
4 MR. HERSH: Association defendants join in
5 Ms. Angell's objection.
7 Q. Okay. Ms. Myers, have you discussed this very
8 issue with the press?
9 A. What issue?
10 Q. The issue of whether it's right or wrong to remove
11 a teacher from his or her position without telling that
12 teacher the reason?
13 A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Then can you discuss it here too?
15 A. Only what has been said in the paper.
16 Q. You discussed the issue in the paper, but you
17 don't feel like you should have to discuss it here in a
18 deposition?
page 50
4 Q. Do you feel that before you were removed from your
5 classroom without being told while all the other teachers
6 who had been removed before you had been told why?
7 MS. ANGELL: Objection as to the characterization
8 of removal from the classroom. There's no foundation for
9 this, and you can -- period. There's no foundation for it,
10 and I believe it mischaracterizes the facts which are not in
11 evidence.
She didn’t care if others had been taken out without being told—she later shows
she felt she knew why I was taken out—she didn’t know if I’d been told
16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record.
Page 51
1 The time is 12:02 p.m. (Recess taken.)
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going on the record. The
4 time is 12:15 p.m.
She wants special rules to apply to her:
6 Q. Ms. Myers, do you care whether or not I was
7 removed from my classroom without being told a reason?
8 A. Your business is your business, and I have nothing
9 to do with that.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. That's between you and the district.
12 Q. Okay. So it's okay with you if teachers are
13 removed from their -- other teachers are removed from their
14 classrooms without being given a reason, but it's just not
15 okay if you're removed from your classroom without being
16 given a reason. Is that it?
20 A. That's not what I said.
21 Q. Is it okay with you if other teachers other than
22 yourself are removed from their classrooms being without
23 being given a reason?
24 A. Say that again?
25 Q. Is it okay with you if other teachers other than
page 52
1 yourself are removed from their classrooms without being
2 given a reason?
20 Do you care whether or not other teachers other
21 than yourself are told not to return to their classrooms by
22 the school district without being given a reason?
23 A. What do you mean by care?
24 Q. Is it of any interest or concern to you at all?
25 A. I would have to say it would be a concern.
Page 53
1 Q. Can you tell me why?
2 A. Tell you why what?
3 Q. It would be a concern to you.
4 A. I think it's important to follow procedure.
5 Q. And what should be done do you think when the
6 district doesn't follow procedure?
10 Q. What would you expect the union to do when the
11 district doesn't follow the contract?
12 A. File a grievance.
13 Q. Would you be surprised to know that the district
14 files grievances for some teachers but not others when the
15 exact same part of the contract is violated?
16 A. Say that again?
17 Q. Would you be surprised to find out that the union
18 files grievances for some teachers and not others when the
19 district violates the contract?
20 A. Yes, I would be surprised.
21 Q. So was I.
22 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Move to strike.
23 MR. HERSH: Joined.
24 MS. ANGELL: I'd like to take a quick break. Can
25 we take a real quick one, not even one minute? Stay on the
page 54
1 record, just take 30 seconds.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
5 Q. Ms. Myers, since Ms. Angell is relying a lot on
6 attorney/client privilege in this case to keep information
7 from being put on the record, I need to know when you were
8 first represented by an attorney regarding any aspect of any
9 case having to do with me?
10 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Seeks to invade
11 attorney/client privilege.
12 MS. LARKINS: You object to the date being
13 revealed of when you first began to represent Ms. Myers?
14 MS. ANGELL: If this witness understands exactly
15 what capacity she had discussions with counsel in, that kind
16 of thing -- I mean, you can ask her when did she first
17 contact counsel as far as she remembers and I won't object to
18 that.
page 55
2 Q. Okay. Ms. Myers, when did Kelly Angell first
3 begin to represent you?
4 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Same objection. Seeks to
5 invade attorney/client privilege.
6 MS. LARKINS: You may answer.
7 MS. ANGELL: No, you may not. You don't answer
8 anything that is attorney/client privileged.
17 I want to know the date on which attorney/client privilege
18 started.
19 THE WITNESS: I don't know the date.
20 BY MS. LARKINS:
21 Q. Okay. Was it sometime in 2004?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. ANGELL: And I'm going to object that this
24 client, this witness, is not a legal expert. She's not been
25 qualified as a legal expert; and therefore, she's not
page 56
1 qualified to make conclusions, legal conclusions. It calls
2 for a legal conclusion, your question. She's not qualified
3 to make those types of conclusions unless you want to
4 establish her as a legal expert.
5 MS. LARKINS: Okay. Are you trying to say,
6 Ms. Angell, that no -- clients that aren't lawyers don't know
7 when they're being represented by a lawyer?
8 MS. ANGELL: You asked her to come up with a legal
9 conclusion as to when the attorney/client privilege began,
10 and I'm telling you that this is not an expert witness, and
11 she can't give a conclusion like that.
17 Q. Okay. Were you represented by an attorney
18 regarding me before 2004?
19 A. No.
8 MS. LARKINS: Do you object to her answering
9 questions about anything that happened before she first spoke
10 to you?
page 58
2 Q. Ms. Myers, the school district's law firm has
3 unfortunately been trying to keep evidence out by saying that
4 it's covered by attorney/client privilege, and they've been
5 doing this counter to the law. And in fact, I'm filing a
6 tort claim against Ms. Angell for suborning perjury.
7 MS. ANGELL: Move to strike.
8 Disregard these kinds of comments by her. This is
9 not a place for her to tell you how things are, the way of
10 the world, et cetera.
24 MS. LARKINS: -- perjury is a serious matter.
Page 60
14 MS. LARKINS: It may become a matter of public
15 concern if county counsel is suborning perjury. The district
16 attorney could subpoena this deposition.
24 MS. LARKINS: This witness has made herself a
25 matter of public interest by going to the media more than
page 61
1 once. She's done everything she could to make a public issue
2 out of herself.
Page 62
1 MS. ANGELL: Well, you haven't responded to the
2 question.
3 MS. LARKINS: I did. I responded to it the first
4 time you brought it up, that whole speech.
14 MS. LARKINS: You think I'm the deponent, don't
15 you?
16 MS. ANGELL: I'm telling you that I think that
17 you're abusing the discovery process here.
18 MS. LARKINS: Well, I know that you're really
19 afraid of the discovery process. You had a protective order
20 against depositions for over a year, and then as soon as that
21 year went up -- was over -- as soon as the stay was lifted,
22 then you said oh, I don't remember the judge ever saying that
23 there was a -- the stay was lifted. And then Werlin suddenly
24 gets sick and although he's been seen walking around
25 perfectly healthy visiting the school district.
Page 63
8 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
9 identification.)
21 Q. Okay. Ms. Myers, would you look at the third
22 paragraph here which is numbered 44932?
23 MS. ANGELL: Before you even start, Mrs. Larkins,
24 I'm going to let you know that as far as you're seeking legal
25 conclusions from this witness, I object to the entire line of
page 64
1 questioning unless you would like to establish that this
2 witness is qualified as a legal expert.
3 MS. LARKINS: Oh, no, I'm not asking her for any
4 legal opinions.
5 Q. Could you read the first two lines and then
6 numbers 1, 2, and 3.
20 Q. Ms. Myers, assuming that this is a legitimate and
21 correct copy of Education Code Section 44932, do you
22 understand that teachers can be dismissed from employment for
23 dishonesty?
24 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Incomplete hypothetical.
25 Calls for legal conclusion. Vague and ambiguous.
Page 65
1 MS. LARKINS: It calls for third grade reading
2 comprehension.
3 MS. ANGELL: If you're able to form a legal
4 conclusion, if you're qualified as a legal expert, please
5 state your qualifications.
6 MS. LARKINS: Ms. Angell, you may phrase the
7 questions when I'm finished.
8 MS. ANGELL: She will not give you a legal
9 conclusion, Mrs. Larkins.
10 MS. LARKINS: You just rephrased and asked her a
11 different question from what I asked. How about you let me
12 ask the questions and then when I'm finished you can ask her
13 questions.
14 You may answer the question.
15 MS. ANGELL: No, you may not. You're not to give
16 legal conclusions.
17 Would you like to move on to another question,
18 Mrs. Larkins? If your question is does this piece of paper
19 say blah, blah, blah, that's one thing. You're asking this
20 witness who's not qualified as a legal expert to give a legal
21 conclusion. It's also an incomplete hypothetical. You
22 haven't -- it's so incomplete, I can't -- I don't even know
23 where to start to tell you how much is wrong with the
24 question.
25 MS. LARKINS: I think the only thing that's wrong
page 66
1 with the question, Ms. Angell, is that you are terrified that
2 witnesses might tell the truth. Question withdrawn.
9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 was marked for identification.)
11 MS. ANGELL: Let the record reflect that plaintiff
12 has handed out two pages with some writing on it by somebody
13 which purport to be a partial printout of Sections 430
14 through part of 432.7 of the Labor Code.
Page 67
8 Q. Okay. Assuming that this is a legitimate document
9 printed out from this web site down here, www.leginfo.ca.gov,
10 would it seem reasonable to you that this was probably
11 sections of the Labor Code rather than some other document?
15 THE WITNESS: I couldn't tell you if it is or not.
16 I am not familiar with the Labor Code.
18 Q. No, I didn't ask you that. I asked you does it
19 seem reasonable to you that if you assume that this is a
20 legitimate document actually printed out from this web site
21 that's given down here that this would be sections of the
22 California Labor Code?
24 THE WITNESS: I would be assuming, so I wouldn't --
25 I wouldn't want to answer an assumption.
1 because it's not -- I'm not sure of the time line and -- so
2 there was a Hispanic principal, yes, but I can't tell you
3 when based on the time line you're coming up with.
4 Q. Do you remember her name?
5 A. Mariana.
6 Q. Okay. And do you know -- and did there come a
7 time that she left Castle Park?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you know why she left?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did she get along well with the staff?
12 A. Yes.
YET SHE LEFT. SHE MUST HAVE HAD A PROBLEM. SHE WAS HISPANIC.
TIM ALLEN WASN’T.
13 Q. Did Oscar Perez get along well with the staff?
14 A. I wouldn't know with everybody.
15 Q. Did he get along well with you?
16 A. I got along with him just fine.
17 Q. Did he get in trouble for spending too much money?
18 A. I would -- I don't know.
19 Q. Did he get a lot of pressure from a clique of
20 upper grade teachers to spend money as they wished?
21 A. I have no idea.
22 Q. Did he also get a lot of pressure from a clique of
23 lower grade teachers to spend money as they wished?
24 A. I have no idea.
25 Q. Okay. And then after Mariana who came next?
Page 41
1 A. I believe Ollie Matos.
2 Q. Was it Tim Allen?
3 A. No, it was not.
4 Q. Was Tim Allen ever principal of Castle Park
5 Elementary?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And Ollie Matos is principal now, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. So Tim Allen had -- okay. So Tim Allen
10 came before Ollie Matos?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And -- okay. And how did you get along
13 with Tim Allen?
14 A. Fine.
15 Q. Did you spend a lot of time talking to him in his
16 office?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you consider yourself one of the more
19 influential teachers at Castle Park as far as influencing the
20 direction the school goes in at least until Ollie Matos came
21 along?
22 A. Possibly.
page 42
1 Q. Who was influential in getting the Kingdoms
2 program ended?
3 A. I do not know.
4 Q. Was there a vote to get it ended?
5 A. There was a vote, but I don't know that that ended
6 it.
IT SURE DIDN’T!!!
7 Q. Okay. When the Kingdoms program began, did you
8 like the idea?
9 A. Not particularly.
10 Q. Did you write a petition to have it only be 45
11 minutes a month?
12 A. Did I write a petition? No.
13 Q. Did you sign a petition to have it only 45 minutes
14 a month?
15 A. I don't recall.
SHE REMEMBERS THAT SHE DIDN’T WRITE THE PETITION, BUT DOESN’T
REMEMBER WHETHER SHE SIGNED IT OR NOT. SHE’S LYING. SHE SIGNED
IT.
16 Q. Okay. Was there a time that the staff voted with
17 a secret ballot and voted to end the Kingdoms program?
18 A. I don't recall.
19 Q. Did the staff/parent management team overrule the
20 teachers and say that they would have to have Kingdoms?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. When that happened did you find that a
23 little troubling given that the staff decision was overruled
24 arbitrarily by the S.P.M.T.?
25 A. I'm not sure what you mean by troubling.
Page 43
1 Q. Was there anything you didn't like about that
2 decision when they overruled the teachers' decision?
3 A. Probably that Kingdoms was back.
Process didn’t bother her regarding Kingdoms, only regarding Ollie Matos!
4 Q. But actually the process by which the decision was
5 made didn't bother you?
11 Q. Okay. How well did you get along with Ollie Matos?
12 A. In a professional manner.
13 Q. How well did the rest of the staff get along with
14 Ollie Matos in staff meetings?
24 Q. Were hostile emotions expressed by members of the
25 staff toward Ollie Matos during the time -- during any staff
page 44
1 meeting you attended at Castle Park?
2 A. Define hostile, please.
3 Q. Raised voice, saying things over and over, an
4 angry voice, angry tone of voice?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Was that in the beginning when Ollie Matos first
7 came or did that develop later?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. Okay. Why were people angry at Ollie Matos?
13 Q. To your knowledge, why were these hostile -- to
14 your knowledge, why were staff members hostile toward Ollie
15 Matos during staff meetings you attended?
16 A. They were upset with the way things were being done.
17 Q. In what sense?
18 A. That staff and parents were misinformed on issues.
19 Q. What were those issues?
20 A. I don't recall them all.
21 Q. But there were several issues?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you recall a single one of those issues?
24 A. The computer lab.
25 Q. Can you recall any others?
Page 45
1 A. There was an issue of coming up with after school
2 activities that would use summer school funds.
3 Q. Can you think of any other issues?
4 A. Just misrepresentation, things said to one person
5 that was not the same to another.
Yet this is exactly how she proceeded with my case
10 Q. Were these misrepresentations about the summer
11 school funds?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Were they about the computer lab?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Were they about anything else that you can recall?
16 A. Not to my -- not that I can recall.
17 Q. Okay. About what percentage of the staff was
18 angry at Ollie Matos about misrepresentations about the
19 computer lab?
24 A. I wouldn't be able to give you a percentage.
THEY CLAIMED THEY REPRESENTED THE WHOLE STAFF
25 Q. Did you feel very much -- were you -- were you
page 46
1 angry at Ollie Matos about misrepresentations about the
2 computer lab?
5 Q. At any time.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were you angry at Ollie Matos about
8 misrepresentations about the computer lab before you were
9 transferred out of Castle Park Elementary School?
10 A. What's the question again?
11 Q. Were you angry at Ollie Matos about
12 misrepresentations about the computer lab before you were
13 transferred out of Castle Park?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How did you express your anger toward Ollie Matos
16 regarding misrepresentations about the computer lab?
17 A. I asked for clarification and reasons for what he
18 wanted to do.
19 Q. Did you do this sometimes in private meetings
20 between yourself and Ollie Matos in his office?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. About how many times would you say you met with
23 him regarding this issue in his office?
24 A. I have no idea.
25 Q. Was it more like two or more like 20?
Page 47
Very bad memory, the worst memory of all in a very competitive contest
1 A. I have no idea. I discussed many issues with
2 Ollie Matos.
3 Q. About how often did you discuss any issue with
4 Ollie Matos in his office?
5 A. I have no idea.
6 Q. Was it once a week? Twice a week?
7 A. I have no idea.
8 Q. Could you say for certain that it was more than
9 once a month?
10 A. For certain? No.
11 Q. Okay. Could you say for certain that it was more
12 than once a year?
13 A. Yes.
16 Do you
17 think that -- do you believe that there is a long history at
18 Castle Park of teachers being removed without being told the
19 reason?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you believe that I was told the reason when I
22 was removed from Castle Park?
23 A. I have no idea.
24 Q. Do you believe that it is wrong to remove a
25 teacher from a school without telling that teacher the reason?
Page 48
1 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
2 Calls for legal conclusion. Incomplete hypothetical. And
3 insofar as you're calling for a legal conclusion, it's
4 calling for a guess because this person's not qualified so
5 far as a legal expert.
6 MS. LARKINS: I'm not asking for a legal opinion.
7 I'm asking for Ms. Myers' opinion.
8 Q. Do you believe that it is wrong to remove a
9 teacher from his or her position without telling that teacher
10 the reason?
15 THE WITNESS: What do you mean by remove?
16 BY MS. LARKINS:
17 Q. To tell that teacher not to return to the
18 classroom or perhaps to -- well, leave it at that, to tell
19 the teacher not to return to the classroom.
20 A. Okay. So the original question is what?
21 Q. Do you believe it's wrong to remove a teacher from
22 his or her position without telling that teacher the reason?
23 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Incomplete hypothetical.
24 If you mean the person's paid? The person's not paid? I
25 mean, this is a wildly incomplete hypothetical.
Page 49
1 MS. LARKINS: Whether they're paid or unpaid,
2 either way.
3 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Compound question.
4 MR. HERSH: Association defendants join in
5 Ms. Angell's objection.
7 Q. Okay. Ms. Myers, have you discussed this very
8 issue with the press?
9 A. What issue?
10 Q. The issue of whether it's right or wrong to remove
11 a teacher from his or her position without telling that
12 teacher the reason?
13 A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Then can you discuss it here too?
15 A. Only what has been said in the paper.
16 Q. You discussed the issue in the paper, but you
17 don't feel like you should have to discuss it here in a
18 deposition?
page 50
4 Q. Do you feel that before you were removed from your
5 classroom without being told while all the other teachers
6 who had been removed before you had been told why?
7 MS. ANGELL: Objection as to the characterization
8 of removal from the classroom. There's no foundation for
9 this, and you can -- period. There's no foundation for it,
10 and I believe it mischaracterizes the facts which are not in
11 evidence.
She didn’t care if others had been taken out without being told—she later shows
she felt she knew why I was taken out—she didn’t know if I’d been told
16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)
25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record.
Page 51
1 The time is 12:02 p.m. (Recess taken.)
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going on the record. The
4 time is 12:15 p.m.
She wants special rules to apply to her:
6 Q. Ms. Myers, do you care whether or not I was
7 removed from my classroom without being told a reason?
8 A. Your business is your business, and I have nothing
9 to do with that.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. That's between you and the district.
12 Q. Okay. So it's okay with you if teachers are
13 removed from their -- other teachers are removed from their
14 classrooms without being given a reason, but it's just not
15 okay if you're removed from your classroom without being
16 given a reason. Is that it?
20 A. That's not what I said.
21 Q. Is it okay with you if other teachers other than
22 yourself are removed from their classrooms being without
23 being given a reason?
24 A. Say that again?
25 Q. Is it okay with you if other teachers other than
page 52
1 yourself are removed from their classrooms without being
2 given a reason?
20 Do you care whether or not other teachers other
21 than yourself are told not to return to their classrooms by
22 the school district without being given a reason?
23 A. What do you mean by care?
24 Q. Is it of any interest or concern to you at all?
25 A. I would have to say it would be a concern.
Page 53
1 Q. Can you tell me why?
2 A. Tell you why what?
3 Q. It would be a concern to you.
4 A. I think it's important to follow procedure.
5 Q. And what should be done do you think when the
6 district doesn't follow procedure?
10 Q. What would you expect the union to do when the
11 district doesn't follow the contract?
12 A. File a grievance.
13 Q. Would you be surprised to know that the district
14 files grievances for some teachers but not others when the
15 exact same part of the contract is violated?
16 A. Say that again?
17 Q. Would you be surprised to find out that the union
18 files grievances for some teachers and not others when the
19 district violates the contract?
20 A. Yes, I would be surprised.
21 Q. So was I.
22 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Move to strike.
23 MR. HERSH: Joined.
24 MS. ANGELL: I'd like to take a quick break. Can
25 we take a real quick one, not even one minute? Stay on the
page 54
1 record, just take 30 seconds.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
5 Q. Ms. Myers, since Ms. Angell is relying a lot on
6 attorney/client privilege in this case to keep information
7 from being put on the record, I need to know when you were
8 first represented by an attorney regarding any aspect of any
9 case having to do with me?
10 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Seeks to invade
11 attorney/client privilege.
12 MS. LARKINS: You object to the date being
13 revealed of when you first began to represent Ms. Myers?
14 MS. ANGELL: If this witness understands exactly
15 what capacity she had discussions with counsel in, that kind
16 of thing -- I mean, you can ask her when did she first
17 contact counsel as far as she remembers and I won't object to
18 that.
page 55
2 Q. Okay. Ms. Myers, when did Kelly Angell first
3 begin to represent you?
4 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Same objection. Seeks to
5 invade attorney/client privilege.
6 MS. LARKINS: You may answer.
7 MS. ANGELL: No, you may not. You don't answer
8 anything that is attorney/client privileged.
17 I want to know the date on which attorney/client privilege
18 started.
19 THE WITNESS: I don't know the date.
20 BY MS. LARKINS:
21 Q. Okay. Was it sometime in 2004?
22 A. Yes.
23 MS. ANGELL: And I'm going to object that this
24 client, this witness, is not a legal expert. She's not been
25 qualified as a legal expert; and therefore, she's not
page 56
1 qualified to make conclusions, legal conclusions. It calls
2 for a legal conclusion, your question. She's not qualified
3 to make those types of conclusions unless you want to
4 establish her as a legal expert.
5 MS. LARKINS: Okay. Are you trying to say,
6 Ms. Angell, that no -- clients that aren't lawyers don't know
7 when they're being represented by a lawyer?
8 MS. ANGELL: You asked her to come up with a legal
9 conclusion as to when the attorney/client privilege began,
10 and I'm telling you that this is not an expert witness, and
11 she can't give a conclusion like that.
17 Q. Okay. Were you represented by an attorney
18 regarding me before 2004?
19 A. No.
8 MS. LARKINS: Do you object to her answering
9 questions about anything that happened before she first spoke
10 to you?
page 58
2 Q. Ms. Myers, the school district's law firm has
3 unfortunately been trying to keep evidence out by saying that
4 it's covered by attorney/client privilege, and they've been
5 doing this counter to the law. And in fact, I'm filing a
6 tort claim against Ms. Angell for suborning perjury.
7 MS. ANGELL: Move to strike.
8 Disregard these kinds of comments by her. This is
9 not a place for her to tell you how things are, the way of
10 the world, et cetera.
24 MS. LARKINS: -- perjury is a serious matter.
Page 60
14 MS. LARKINS: It may become a matter of public
15 concern if county counsel is suborning perjury. The district
16 attorney could subpoena this deposition.
24 MS. LARKINS: This witness has made herself a
25 matter of public interest by going to the media more than
page 61
1 once. She's done everything she could to make a public issue
2 out of herself.
Page 62
1 MS. ANGELL: Well, you haven't responded to the
2 question.
3 MS. LARKINS: I did. I responded to it the first
4 time you brought it up, that whole speech.
14 MS. LARKINS: You think I'm the deponent, don't
15 you?
16 MS. ANGELL: I'm telling you that I think that
17 you're abusing the discovery process here.
18 MS. LARKINS: Well, I know that you're really
19 afraid of the discovery process. You had a protective order
20 against depositions for over a year, and then as soon as that
21 year went up -- was over -- as soon as the stay was lifted,
22 then you said oh, I don't remember the judge ever saying that
23 there was a -- the stay was lifted. And then Werlin suddenly
24 gets sick and although he's been seen walking around
25 perfectly healthy visiting the school district.
Page 63
8 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 was marked for
9 identification.)
21 Q. Okay. Ms. Myers, would you look at the third
22 paragraph here which is numbered 44932?
23 MS. ANGELL: Before you even start, Mrs. Larkins,
24 I'm going to let you know that as far as you're seeking legal
25 conclusions from this witness, I object to the entire line of
page 64
1 questioning unless you would like to establish that this
2 witness is qualified as a legal expert.
3 MS. LARKINS: Oh, no, I'm not asking her for any
4 legal opinions.
5 Q. Could you read the first two lines and then
6 numbers 1, 2, and 3.
20 Q. Ms. Myers, assuming that this is a legitimate and
21 correct copy of Education Code Section 44932, do you
22 understand that teachers can be dismissed from employment for
23 dishonesty?
24 MS. ANGELL: Objection. Incomplete hypothetical.
25 Calls for legal conclusion. Vague and ambiguous.
Page 65
1 MS. LARKINS: It calls for third grade reading
2 comprehension.
3 MS. ANGELL: If you're able to form a legal
4 conclusion, if you're qualified as a legal expert, please
5 state your qualifications.
6 MS. LARKINS: Ms. Angell, you may phrase the
7 questions when I'm finished.
8 MS. ANGELL: She will not give you a legal
9 conclusion, Mrs. Larkins.
10 MS. LARKINS: You just rephrased and asked her a
11 different question from what I asked. How about you let me
12 ask the questions and then when I'm finished you can ask her
13 questions.
14 You may answer the question.
15 MS. ANGELL: No, you may not. You're not to give
16 legal conclusions.
17 Would you like to move on to another question,
18 Mrs. Larkins? If your question is does this piece of paper
19 say blah, blah, blah, that's one thing. You're asking this
20 witness who's not qualified as a legal expert to give a legal
21 conclusion. It's also an incomplete hypothetical. You
22 haven't -- it's so incomplete, I can't -- I don't even know
23 where to start to tell you how much is wrong with the
24 question.
25 MS. LARKINS: I think the only thing that's wrong
page 66
1 with the question, Ms. Angell, is that you are terrified that
2 witnesses might tell the truth. Question withdrawn.
9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 was marked for identification.)
11 MS. ANGELL: Let the record reflect that plaintiff
12 has handed out two pages with some writing on it by somebody
13 which purport to be a partial printout of Sections 430
14 through part of 432.7 of the Labor Code.
Page 67
8 Q. Okay. Assuming that this is a legitimate document
9 printed out from this web site down here, www.leginfo.ca.gov,
10 would it seem reasonable to you that this was probably
11 sections of the Labor Code rather than some other document?
15 THE WITNESS: I couldn't tell you if it is or not.
16 I am not familiar with the Labor Code.
18 Q. No, I didn't ask you that. I asked you does it
19 seem reasonable to you that if you assume that this is a
20 legitimate document actually printed out from this web site
21 that's given down here that this would be sections of the
22 California Labor Code?
24 THE WITNESS: I would be assuming, so I wouldn't --
25 I wouldn't want to answer an assumption.
