MAURA LARKINS
1935 Autocross Court
El Cajon, CA 92019
619 660 6955
Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
MAURA LARKINS, ) Case No. GIC 781970
Plaintiff, ) Judge: Hon. William R. Nevitt, Jr.
) Dept: 64
vs. ) Hearing date: June 13, 2003
)
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL )
DISTRICT, a California public entity, ) PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY EDUCATION) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
ASSOCIATION, a California labor organization,) IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
RICHARD T. WERLIN, ) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
GINA BOYD, ) ORDER
ROBIN COLLS, )
BRIAN DOIG, )
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )
Defendants. )
) COMPLAINT FILED: 1/24/2002
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
Comes now Plaintiff and offers the following memorandum of points and authorities in
opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order.
CONTENTS
I. ANSWERS TO BRIAN DOIG’S 20 INTERROGATORIES ARE URGENTLY
NEEDED.
II. TWELVE OF PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION ARE UNHARMED BY THE
COMMISSION’S DECISION.
III. ONLY SEVEN CAUSES OF ACTION ARE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE
COMMISSION’S DECISION.
IV. CONTRARY TO THEIR CLAIM, DEFENDANTS HAVE PROCEEDED
AGRESSIVELY WITH DISCOVERY SINCE THEY WERE GRANTED A PROTECTIVE
ORDER AGAINST DEPOSITIONS.
V. PLAINTIFF IS UNABLE TO FINALIZE THE PLEADINGS GIVEN THE EXTREME
LACK OF COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS IN DISCOVERY.
DISCUSSION
I. ANSWERS TO BRIAN DOIG’S 20 INTERROGATORIES ARE URGENTLY NEEDED
Less than three months remain before the three-year statute of limitations runs out
on the civil tort, which has been alleged in this case, of records of an arrest which did
not lead to a conviction having been obtained and published by some defendants. In
order to permit discovery of the precise identity of the individual(s) who illegally
obtained and published records of Plaintiff’s arrest which did not result in a
conviction, defendants must respond to special interrogatories. Defendants, in their
Motion for a Protective Order, make the odd argument that discovery should not be
allowed in this case until all the parties and facts are known.
It is of utmost importance that Brian Doig respond to the 20 special interrogatories
which were served on him on April 11, 2003. He has refused even to provide his
telephone number after the court ordered him to do so. On March 28, 2003, during
a Case Management Conference, the Court suggested that in lieu of deposing Mr.
Doig, he be served with 20 special interrogatories regarding his identity and the facts
of the case, in order to find out whether counsel for CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL DISTRICT is correct in alleging that Plaintiff mistakenly sued Brian Doig,
when she would more appropriately have sued his alleged, unnamed brother.
Also, the true answers to the 20 special interrogatories propounded to Mr. Doig will
clear up the question of whether the signature on the Declaration of Brian Doig, filed
by Defendants as Exhibit E in their April 17, 2003 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
File a Fifth Amended Complaint, is authentic.
Since the lawyers for Chula Vista Elementary School District are not representing Mr.
Doig, and the declaration is not notarized, Defendants’ counsel must have some
doubts as to its authenticity. Defendants’ counsel went out on a limb for Mr. Doig
when they filed his alleged declaration, and surely they must want to know if their
trust was misplaced. Plaintiff assumes that in the rush of daily business, Defendants’
counsel confused this case with a case in which they had a legitimate reason to ask
for a protective order.
II. TWELVE CAUSES OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
ARE UNAFFECTED OR POSITIVELY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
Defendants have listed five Appeals cases, Johnson, Westlake, Fresno, Logan, and
Abelleira, which concern Plaintiffs who filed suit as a result of a dismissal action. This
case law is inapplicable to most of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action.
Plaintiff’s civil suit was not filed as a result of the District’s dismissal of Plaintiff. The
reverse is true. The District voted to dismiss Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff’s filing
this lawsuit.
Plaintiff incurred over $25,000 in damages long before the School Board voted on
May 7, 2002 to dismiss her. Conceivably, if the decision of the COMMISSION were
not to be set aside, Plaintiff’s damages in this lawsuit would be limited to the
damages she suffered before May 7, 2002. But that is the only negative effect that
this decision would have on Plaintiff’s FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, NINTH,
TENTH, THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, FIFTEENTH, SIXTEENTH, EIGHTEENTH AND
NINETEENTH causes of action.
A total of twelve Causes of Action are unharmed by the COMMISSION’s decision.
III. ONLY SEVEN CAUSES OF ACTION ARE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
Three Causes of Action would be negatively affected by the above-mentioned case
law, and four would be negatively affected by one of the COMMISSION’s findings, for
a total of seven Causes of Action so affected, if the decision of the COMMISSION
were to be upheld.
The ELEVENTH, TWELFTH, and SEVENTEENTH Causes of Action, which were
added as a result of the District’s vote to dismiss Plaintiff, would be affected. (The
EIGHTEENTH would also be affected, but the effect would be positive rather than
negative, since the COMMISSION’s decision specifically states that Plaintiff is being
dismissed based on her filing of grievances, tort claims, and a lawsuit. The
COMMISSION’s decision also finds that Plaintiff filed a charge with the Public
Employment Relations Board, but does not specifically state that this was also a
reason for dismissing her. Perhaps this was an oversight. If not, it would be
interesting to hear the COMMISSION’s reasoning as to how a PERB charge differs
from a grievance, tort claim, or lawsuit.)
The remaining four Causes of Action, the FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH,
would be negatively affected if the COMMISSION’s finding about Werlin’s story
regarding March 27, 2001 were upheld. Plaintiff is willing to forego discovery on
those causes of action until such time as the decision of the COMMISSION may be
set aside.
Of course, no Cause of Action will be affected by the decision of the COMMISSION
ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE if Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandate to set
aside the decision of the COMMISSION is granted.
IV. CONTRARY TO THEIR CLAIM, DEFENDANTS HAVE PROCEEDED
AGRESSIVELY WITH DISCOVERY SINCE THEY WERE GRANTED A PROTECTIVE
ORDER AGAINST DEPOSITIONS
In Exhibit B of Defendants’ Notice of Lodgment which accompanies this Motion for
Protective Order, Kelly Angell states, “You will notice that my office has refrained
from pursuing any additional discovery from you during this time of continued
uncertainty with the pleadings.”
A quick look through the file of this case will show that the District has vigorously
proceeded with discovery since the protective order against depositions was
granted. They have aggressively sought and been granted the right to subpoena
Plaintiff’s medical records.
Yet Defendants now seek protection from having to turn over to Plaintiff her own
employment records. The right to see one’s own employment records should not
even require legal maneuvers in the first place. It is outrageous that Defendants’
insist that they may keep secret these documents, while insisting that Plaintiff has no
right to the privacy of her medical records.
V. PLAINTIFF IS UNABLE TO FINALIZE THE PLEADINGS GIVEN THE EXTREME
LACK OF COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS IN DISCOVERY.
This case is clearly headed on a trajectory toward full revelation of the truth.
Defendants’ efforts to delay the inevitable do not serve any good purpose. Why not
get all the facts out on the table, figure out how to deal with them, and then get back
to the business of educating students?
The discovery to which Defendants are objecting is Request for Production of
Documents (Set One). Defendants have not produced a single document in this
case. How can this request be unduly burdensome?
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order.
Given the fact that only three months remain before the three-year statute of
limitations runs out on the civil tort of illegally obtaining and publishing records of an
arrest which did not lead to a conviction, Plaintiff also requests that the Court lift the
Protective Order against the taking of Depositions.
Dated: May 31, 2003
Maura Larkins, Plaintiff in pro per
| CVESD and lawyers Shinoff, Morris and Angell request protective order |
SAN DIEGO
EDUCATION
REPORT
EDUCATION
REPORT
mauralarkins.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |