From Defendant's
declaration: Defendant
would eliminate any
defamatory statement that
might find its shameful way
onto her website. It is only
true statements about
matters of public interest
that Defendant wishes to
keep on her website.
declaration: Defendant
would eliminate any
defamatory statement that
might find its shameful way
onto her website. It is only
true statements about
matters of public interest
that Defendant wishes to
keep on her website.
MAURA LARKINS
Defendant in pro per
Defendant in pro per
| Maura Larkins' Opposition to Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz' Motion for Summary Judgment |
6. Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s statement 6, which is a
wildly inaccurate extrapolation of Plaintiff’s own
statements in RFAs 10 and 11. Plaintiff’s original
statements refer to very specific conduct. The idea that
SASH could have engaged in “the exact same conduct as is
described in the order” in the Moser case is preposterous
on its face (the order is 83 pages long), and Defendant
would never say such a thing. Defendant said that some,
not all, of the conduct of Lozano Smith in the Moser case
was the same as conduct of Plaintiff.
Defendant officially objected to RFAs 10 and 11.
Objection 11 states:
“… The statement is worded in a manner that could be
misinterpreted. The truth is that I searched the Moser v.
Bret Harte Union High School District decision for
descriptions of attorney behavior that accurately described
the behavior of Plaintiff’s attorneys, and then stated that
Stutz law firm attorneys had engaged in those behaviors...”
wildly inaccurate extrapolation of Plaintiff’s own
statements in RFAs 10 and 11. Plaintiff’s original
statements refer to very specific conduct. The idea that
SASH could have engaged in “the exact same conduct as is
described in the order” in the Moser case is preposterous
on its face (the order is 83 pages long), and Defendant
would never say such a thing. Defendant said that some,
not all, of the conduct of Lozano Smith in the Moser case
was the same as conduct of Plaintiff.
Defendant officially objected to RFAs 10 and 11.
Objection 11 states:
“… The statement is worded in a manner that could be
misinterpreted. The truth is that I searched the Moser v.
Bret Harte Union High School District decision for
descriptions of attorney behavior that accurately described
the behavior of Plaintiff’s attorneys, and then stated that
Stutz law firm attorneys had engaged in those behaviors...”
Defendant’s Exhibit J
(Defendant’s responses to RFAs #10 and #11) is
attached since Plaintiff's Exhibit B is missing
pages 2, 3, and 4, which contain responses #10
and #11.
Plaintiff’s Exhibit A
(Plaintiff’s RFAs 10 and 11);
(Defendant’s responses to RFAs #10 and #11) is
attached since Plaintiff's Exhibit B is missing
pages 2, 3, and 4, which contain responses #10
and #11.
Plaintiff’s Exhibit A
(Plaintiff’s RFAs 10 and 11);
Plaintiff’s Exhibit “I,”
a printout of the “Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz” webpage from Defendant’s site (see page
4, right hand column).
This Exhibit is also Exhibit 2 in the deposition of
Maura Larkins.
a printout of the “Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz” webpage from Defendant’s site (see page
4, right hand column).
This Exhibit is also Exhibit 2 in the deposition of
Maura Larkins.
) Case No. 37-2007-00076218-CU-DF-CTL
) Judge: Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept: 68
) Date January 9, 2009 10:30 a.m.
)
) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
) DISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION
) TO PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) JUDGMENT
)
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
) Judge: Hon. Judith F. Hayes
) Dept: 68
) Date January 9, 2009 10:30 a.m.
)
) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
) DISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION
) TO PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) JUDGMENT
)
) TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
) CASE FILED: OCTOBER 5, 2007
STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
Defendant.
______________________________
& HOLTZ, APC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAURA LARKINS,
Defendant.
______________________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Exhibit B has three pages missing, pages 2, 3, and 4
Exhibit C fails to include errata and signature sheet, even though the pages chosen
by Plaintiff are referred to five times on the errata sheet, specifically pages 159, 161
(two errors), 165 and 198
Exhibit C fails to include errata and signature sheet, even though the pages chosen
by Plaintiff are referred to five times on the errata sheet, specifically pages 159, 161
(two errors), 165 and 198
| I. ISSUE 1 DEFENDANT’S WEBSITE IS NOT DEFAMATORY: TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO DEFAMATION AND DEFENDANT’S WEBSITE CONCERNS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST |
8 is not disputed by Defendant
9 is disputed. Defendant has a reasonable basis for
her statement.
My statements are based on my personal
experience with plaintiff, and voluminous court
documents.
her statement.
My statements are based on my personal
experience with plaintiff, and voluminous court
documents.
11 is disputed. Defendant had a reasonable basis
for her statement when she wrote it, and has even
more support for her statement now, since Dan
Shinoff has refused to produce the documents in
question even after filing a lawsuit in which he
claims that he doesn't keep documents locked up in
his files.
for her statement when she wrote it, and has even
more support for her statement now, since Dan
Shinoff has refused to produce the documents in
question even after filing a lawsuit in which he
claims that he doesn't keep documents locked up in
his files.
10 is not disputed by Defendant
Defendant's Exhibit M,
Deposition of Ray Artiano*
page 4, line 22 through page 12,
line 3
Deposition of Ray Artiano*
page 4, line 22 through page 12,
line 3
12 is not disputed by Defendant:
"In two locations on her website,
Defendant states that "Shinoff...presents
perjured testimony."
"In two locations on her website,
Defendant states that "Shinoff...presents
perjured testimony."
13 is disputed.
Defendant has a reasonable basis for
her statements, "Shinoff...presents
perjured testimony."
Defendant has a reasonable basis for
her statements, "Shinoff...presents
perjured testimony."
Defendant disputed this
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.
Defendant has a reasonable basis
for her statement, "A favorite Daniel
Shinoff tactic is to try to get plaintiff's
arrested."
The reasonable basis for
Defendant's statement is
contained in:
Lindsey Stuart case,
Claudia Houston case,
David Alberts case,
Maura Larkins case (Stutz
motion in 2004) and elsewhere.
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.
Defendant has a reasonable basis
for her statement, "A favorite Daniel
Shinoff tactic is to try to get plaintiff's
arrested."
The reasonable basis for
Defendant's statement is
contained in:
Lindsey Stuart case,
Claudia Houston case,
David Alberts case,
Maura Larkins case (Stutz
motion in 2004) and elsewhere.
14 is not disputed by Defendant:
"Elsewhere on her website,
Defendant states that, "A favorite
Daniel Shinoff tactic is to try to get
plaintiff's arrested."
"Elsewhere on her website,
Defendant states that, "A favorite
Daniel Shinoff tactic is to try to get
plaintiff's arrested."
15 is disputed.
16 is not disputed by Defendant:
"...Defendant states that 'Daniel
Shinoff, Kelly Angell
"...Defendant states that 'Daniel
Shinoff, Kelly Angell
17 is disputed. Defendant has a
reasonable basis for all the
statements on her website. It
seems that Plaintiff meant to refer
to 16, not 15, in this statement.
reasonable basis for all the
statements on her website. It
seems that Plaintiff meant to refer
to 16, not 15, in this statement.
18 is disputed. Defendant made it
clear on her website that she was
guessing Bob Gallagher's motives for
leaving the firm he helped to found.
Plaintiff's own Exhibit "I" shows that
Defendant wrote, "My guess is that two
things motivated Gallagher: 1) He was
concerned that Shinoff and Artiano
had become reckless in their attitudes
toward use of intimidation as a tactic;
and 2) He couldn't tolerate the
extreme lack of ethics."
Defendant believes it is possible that
Gallagher consulted with his
clergyman in reaching his decision to
leave the firm. Of course, no honest
and emotionally stable person would
claim that this proves that Defendant
is prejudiced against Catholics.
clear on her website that she was
guessing Bob Gallagher's motives for
leaving the firm he helped to found.
Plaintiff's own Exhibit "I" shows that
Defendant wrote, "My guess is that two
things motivated Gallagher: 1) He was
concerned that Shinoff and Artiano
had become reckless in their attitudes
toward use of intimidation as a tactic;
and 2) He couldn't tolerate the
extreme lack of ethics."
Defendant believes it is possible that
Gallagher consulted with his
clergyman in reaching his decision to
leave the firm. Of course, no honest
and emotionally stable person would
claim that this proves that Defendant
is prejudiced against Catholics.
19 is disputed. It seems that Plaintiff
meant to refer to 18, not 17, in this
statement. Defendant did not make the
statement of which she is accused by
Plaintiff in 18. Defendant has a
reasonable basis for all the statements
on her website.
meant to refer to 18, not 17, in this
statement. Defendant did not make the
statement of which she is accused by
Plaintiff in 18. Defendant has a
reasonable basis for all the statements
on her website.
20 is disputed. All of Defendant's
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct
if and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention. SASH's
statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would admit the
truth of the statement, "Dan Shinoff
trains board members and employees as
well as attorneys." At the very least,
SASH would agree that "Stutz filed suit
on Oct. 5, 07 for defamation against the
author of this website."
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct
if and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention. SASH's
statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would admit the
truth of the statement, "Dan Shinoff
trains board members and employees as
well as attorneys." At the very least,
SASH would agree that "Stutz filed suit
on Oct. 5, 07 for defamation against the
author of this website."
| 5: Defendant disputes the accuracy of Plaintiff's typing in statement 5. “Firm” is correct, not “Firms.” This typographical error apparently slipped the attention of Plaintiff when preparing the RFAs, and also got past Defendant when she was responding to the RFAs. As can be seen in Plaintiff’s own Exhibit I for this Motion, the correct quote is “Education Law Firm Slammed by Federal Judge,” not “Law Firms.” |
1-4: Defendant DOES NOT dispute statements 1 through
4, inclusive.
4, inclusive.
Answer of Maura Larkins to the instant
complaint
complaint
Answer of Maura Larkins to
the instant complaint
the instant complaint
Defendant disputed this
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.
The reasonable basis for this
statement is contained in deposition
testimony and pleadings from the
instant case and from Larkins v.
Richard Werlin, et al, as well as in
documents and defendant's own
personal knowledge.
"undisputed fact" in her answer
to the instant complaint.
The reasonable basis for this
statement is contained in deposition
testimony and pleadings from the
instant case and from Larkins v.
Richard Werlin, et al, as well as in
documents and defendant's own
personal knowledge.
| Defendant's Exhibit "___" (Page 4 of 14 of the June 16, 2008 printout of mauralarkins.com/stutzartianoshinoff.html ) Plaintiff's Exhibit 'I" |
| Defendant's Exhibit "__" (Page 4 of 14 of Plaintiff's Exhibit "I," which is a June 16, 2008 printout of mauralarkins.com/stutzartianoshinoff.html ) Plaintiff's Exhibit 'I" |
21and 22 are not disputed by
Defendant
Defendant
23 is disputed by Defendant. SASH
stated under oath in Ray Artiano's
deposition that it has no evidence
of any harm that has occurred to it
as a result of Defendant's website.
stated under oath in Ray Artiano's
deposition that it has no evidence
of any harm that has occurred to it
as a result of Defendant's website.
| II. |
Ray Artiano deposition
Page 17
3 MS. LARKINS: Okay. Did you
produce documents
4 supporting your claim that my
website has caused
5 financial losses to your firm?
6 MR. SHINOFF: We don't
have specific documents
7 other than your website itself,
and we have documents
8 from your website.
9 MS. LARKINS: I have no
information on my
10 website about financial losses
to you as a result of my
11 website.
12 MR. SHINOFF: It is our
belief that your
13 website has interfered with
prospective economic
14 advantage. It's our opinion that
your website is
15 slanderous, per se.
16 MS. LARKINS: If it were
false, it would be
17 slanderous, per se. I agree with
you there. The only
18 problem is is that it's all true.
Page 17
3 MS. LARKINS: Okay. Did you
produce documents
4 supporting your claim that my
website has caused
5 financial losses to your firm?
6 MR. SHINOFF: We don't
have specific documents
7 other than your website itself,
and we have documents
8 from your website.
9 MS. LARKINS: I have no
information on my
10 website about financial losses
to you as a result of my
11 website.
12 MR. SHINOFF: It is our
belief that your
13 website has interfered with
prospective economic
14 advantage. It's our opinion that
your website is
15 slanderous, per se.
16 MS. LARKINS: If it were
false, it would be
17 slanderous, per se. I agree with
you there. The only
18 problem is is that it's all true.
24 is disputed by Defendant.
| Defendant's declaration. Plaintiff's Exhibits ________ |
Simply because Defendant disputes the defamatory nature of her statements does not entitle
Plaintiff to declaratory relief. The statement is preposterous.
Plaintiff to declaratory relief. The statement is preposterous.
25 is disputed. All of Defendant's
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct if
and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention. SASH's
statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that
"Dan Shinoff trains board members and
employees as well as attorneys." At the
very least, SASH would agree that Stutz
filed suit on Oct. 5, 07 for defamation
against the author of this website.
SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to
deceive the court.
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct if
and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention. SASH's
statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that
"Dan Shinoff trains board members and
employees as well as attorneys." At the
very least, SASH would agree that Stutz
filed suit on Oct. 5, 07 for defamation
against the author of this website.
SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to
deceive the court.
25 is the same as 20
ALL FALSE
26 and 27 are the same
as 21 and 22
PRIVATE FIRM
TOP HITS
same as 23
AFFECT BUSINESS
UNWILLING TO CEASE
AND DESIST
ALL FALSE
26 and 27 are the same
as 21 and 22
PRIVATE FIRM
TOP HITS
same as 23
AFFECT BUSINESS
UNWILLING TO CEASE
AND DESIST
26 and 27 are not disputed by
Defendant
Defendant
28 is disputed by Defendant. SASH
stated under oath on November 8, 2007
during Ray Artiano's deposition that it
has no evidence of any harm that has
occurred to it as a result of Defendant's
website, and has produced no
evidence to support the statement
during the year that has passed since
then. This information could easily
have been included in Daniel Shinoff's
or ____'s declaration.
stated under oath on November 8, 2007
during Ray Artiano's deposition that it
has no evidence of any harm that has
occurred to it as a result of Defendant's
website, and has produced no
evidence to support the statement
during the year that has passed since
then. This information could easily
have been included in Daniel Shinoff's
or ____'s declaration.
Ray Artiano deposition
Dan Shinoff declaration
____'s declaration
Dan Shinoff declaration
____'s declaration
29 is disputed. Defendant would
eliminate any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her website. It
is only true statements about
matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website. Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about
Plaintiff.
eliminate any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her website. It
is only true statements about
matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website. Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about
Plaintiff.
ISSUE 2: PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO DECLARATORY RELIEF; DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO REPORT AND DISCUSS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ON HER WEBSITE, AND PLAINTIFF IS A PUBLIC FIGURE PLAINTIFF MAY NOT SILENCE DEFENDANT SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS DEFENDING HERSELF. IN ITS PART I OF THE INSTANT MOTION, SASH SAID THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT DISPUTE THAT "ALL OF DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS ARE FALSE." IN PART II SASH SAYS "DEFENDANT DISPUTES THE DEFAMATORY NATURE OF HER STATEMENTS." SASH'S MOTION IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS. |
| This pleading is a work in progress. |
From Defendant's
declaration: Defendant
would eliminate any
defamatory statement that
might find its shameful way
onto her website. It is only
true statements about
matters of public interest
that Defendant wishes to
keep on her website.
declaration: Defendant
would eliminate any
defamatory statement that
might find its shameful way
onto her website. It is only
true statements about
matters of public interest
that Defendant wishes to
keep on her website.
| III. ISSUE 3 PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THE ONLY REASON PLAINTIFF HAS NO LEGAL REMEDY IS BECAUSE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND THIS LITIGATION IS PURELY MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. PLAINTIFF MAY NOT SILENCE DEFENDANT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THE TRUTH ABOUT MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. PLAINTIFF STATES THAT IT WANTS "TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO ITS BUSINESS AND REPUTATION." THIS INDICATES THAT PLAINTIFF IS CONCEALING EVIDENCE. |
| IV PLAINTIFF’S LIST OF “UNDISPUTED FACTS” REGARDING ISSUE 1 INCLUDES 9 DISPUTED FACTS |
30 IS THE SAME AS 20 AND
25
ALL FALSE
31 SAME AS 21 AND 26
PRIVATE FIRM
32 SAME AS 22 AND 27
TOP HITS
33 SAME AS 23 AND 28
AFFECT BUSINESS
34 SAME AS 29
DEFENDANT DISPUTES
25
ALL FALSE
31 SAME AS 21 AND 26
PRIVATE FIRM
32 SAME AS 22 AND 27
TOP HITS
33 SAME AS 23 AND 28
AFFECT BUSINESS
34 SAME AS 29
DEFENDANT DISPUTES
30 is disputed. All of Defendant's
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct if
and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention. SASH's
statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that
"Dan Shinoff trains board members and
employees as well as attorneys." At the
very least, SASH would agree that Stutz
filed suit on Oct. 5, 07 for defamation
against the author of this website.
SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to
deceive the court.
statements about SASH are true, except
for minor mistakes which Defendant has
corrected, or would be willing to correct if
and when any minor mistake might be
brought to her attention. SASH's
statement 20 is hyperbolic, of course; I
trust that even SASH would agree that
"Dan Shinoff trains board members and
employees as well as attorneys." At the
very least, SASH would agree that Stutz
filed suit on Oct. 5, 07 for defamation
against the author of this website.
SASH'S listing of this statement as an
"undisputed" fact is a perfect example of
SASH's habit and custom of trying to
deceive the court.
31 and 32 are not disputed by
Defendant
Defendant
33 is disputed by Defendant. SASH
stated under oath on November 8, 2007
during Ray Artiano's deposition that it
has no evidence of any harm that has
occurred to it as a result of Defendant's
website, and has produced no
evidence to support the statement
during the year that has passed since
then. This information could easily
have been included in Daniel Shinoff's
or ____'s declaration.
stated under oath on November 8, 2007
during Ray Artiano's deposition that it
has no evidence of any harm that has
occurred to it as a result of Defendant's
website, and has produced no
evidence to support the statement
during the year that has passed since
then. This information could easily
have been included in Daniel Shinoff's
or ____'s declaration.
Ray Artiano deposition
Dan Shinoff declaration
____'s declaration
Dan Shinoff declaration
____'s declaration
20 ALL FALSE
23 AFFECTS HOW?
24 Malice
23 AFFECTS HOW?
24 Malice
34 is disputed. Defendant would
eliminate any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her website. It
is only true statements about
matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website. Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about
Plaintiff.
eliminate any defamatory
statement that might find its
shameful way onto her website. It
is only true statements about
matters of public interest that
Defendant wishes to keep on her
website. Defendant has made no
defamatory statements about
Plaintiff.
| Statements from Plaintiff SASH’s Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff incorrectly characterizes many of the following statements as "undisputed" |
| Supporting Evidence for Defendant’s Position on Plaintiff’s Statements |
| BLOGS |
From Maura Larkins' deposition:
"Q. Did you do a search on any PACER
database to see if any orders had been issued
by any judge ever, accusing the Stutz firm of
unethical behavior?
"A. No. I knew that from personal experience."
--Plaintiff's Exhibit C (Larkins Deposition page
75 lines 7-10)
"Q. Did you do a search on any PACER
database to see if any orders had been issued
by any judge ever, accusing the Stutz firm of
unethical behavior?
"A. No. I knew that from personal experience."
--Plaintiff's Exhibit C (Larkins Deposition page
75 lines 7-10)
Exhibit C fails to include errata
and signature sheet, even
though the pages chosen by
Plaintiff are referred to five times
on the errata sheet, specifically
pages 159, 161 (two errors), 165
and 198
| Defendant’s Exhibit J (Defendant’s responses to RFAs 8 and 9) is attached since Plaintiff's Exhibit B has three pages missing, pages 2, 3, and 4, which contain responses 8 and 9; Plaintiff’s Exhibit A (Plaintiff’s RFAs 8 and 9) |
7. Regarding reasonableness and regard for truth of alleged
Defendant statements as described above in "facts" 5 and 6:
What are SASH lawyers smoking?
It is preposterous to use RFAs 8 and 9 to claim that because
Defendant admits that the Moser decision does not refer to
Plaintiff or any of its attorneys, then it is therefore
unreasonable and reckless for Defendant to say that Plaintiff
is unethical.
Defendant's statements are based on her personal experience
with plaintiff, and voluminous court documents.
Defendant also disputes that she made statements as
described in "facts" 5 and 6. In fact, 5 and 6 misrepresent
statements on her website (see responses to 5 and 6 above).
Defendant has a reasonable basis for all statements on her
website, and used care in ascertaining that her statements
were true before she published them.
Defendant statements as described above in "facts" 5 and 6:
What are SASH lawyers smoking?
It is preposterous to use RFAs 8 and 9 to claim that because
Defendant admits that the Moser decision does not refer to
Plaintiff or any of its attorneys, then it is therefore
unreasonable and reckless for Defendant to say that Plaintiff
is unethical.
Defendant's statements are based on her personal experience
with plaintiff, and voluminous court documents.
Defendant also disputes that she made statements as
described in "facts" 5 and 6. In fact, 5 and 6 misrepresent
statements on her website (see responses to 5 and 6 above).
Defendant has a reasonable basis for all statements on her
website, and used care in ascertaining that her statements
were true before she published them.
| Daniel Shinoff’s declaration is a blatant attempt to prejudice the court, and contains a glaring hoax. |
| Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins Defamation lawsuit regarding website |
22 Did you bring documents today?
23 MR. SHINOFF: Yes. We did.
24 MS. LARKINS: Okay. Instead of handing them
25 all in a bunch, where it will be hard, I'm sure you can
5 line 1 figure out what they are faster than I can. Do you have
2 the bate stamped Document Number 5?
3 MR. SHINOFF: We have many bate stamped
4 documents in our office, and we were attempting to figure
5 out precisely what it was that you were looking for, but
6 we do have a bate stamped Document Number 5 dated April
7 26, 2001 from yourself to Mr. Werlin.
8 MS. LARKINS: Okay. You know, I'm a little
9 confused here. Isn't Mr. Artiano supposed to be talking?
10 MR. SHINOFF: No, not right now. Not right
11 now, because you asked me about documents that are
being
12 produced; and so, as counsel, I'm telling you what we
13 have produced.
14 MS. LARKINS: Okay.
15 MR. SHINOFF: We brought a series of documents
16 bate stamped 1 through 70 -- or through 84.
17 (EXH. 1 was marked for identification.)
18 BY MS. LARKINS:
19 Q. Okay. I'd like to have this marked as Exhibit
20 Number 1. It is my notice of taking deposition and
21 request for production of documents. And here is a copy
22 for you, Mr. Artiano. Does this document look familiar
23 to you?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 Q. Okay. Would you look at the second page. And
page 6 line
8 A. Well, the document speaks for itself. I'm not
9 here to read, ma'am.
10 Q. Okay. Well, I'm going to consider you a
11 hostile witness, and this is how I'm going to do it. I
12 will ask you if it says a certain thing. I'm going to
13 need my copy.
14 Mr. Artiano, on page 2, line 15 of Exhibit 1,
15 do you see the sentence, "The bate stamps begin with
the
16 number 1, not 01 or 001, and continue through 87"?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Okay. Do you have a document that is bate
19 stamped with a 5, not a 05 or a 005?
20 A. Not to my knowledge.
21 MR. SHINOFF: Nor do I.
22 BY MS. LARKINS:
23 Q. Well, that is very interesting. How about a
24 document that is bate stamped 06 -- 6, not 06?
25 A. Not to my knowledge.
page 7 line 1 MR. SHINOFF: Nor do I.
2 BY MS. LARKINS:
3 Q. Did you bring any of the documents that are
4 specifically numbered here in paragraph 1 on page 2 of
5 this exhibit?
6 A. Based on what we could make out from your
7 request, we had the documents gathered, which
8 Mr. Shinoff, my attorney, brought with him.
9 Q. Well, it would appear that either intentionally
10 or unintentionally, you ignored this last sentence in
11 this first document request.
So I'm asking you, now that
12 I'm making it really clear to you that the documents I'm
13 talking about don't have any zeroes in front of the
14 single digits, did you bring any of those?
15 A. I just answered that.
…
21 BY MS. LARKINS:
22 Q. Okay. Did you bring a document that is bate
23 stamped with a 9, not a 09?
24 A. Not to my knowledge.
25 Q. Did you bring a document that is bate stamped
page 8 line 1 09?
2 MR. SHINOFF: Yes.
3 BY MS. LARKINS:
4 Q. And what is that document, Mr. Artiano?
5 A. That document is a letter dated -- actually, it
23 MR. SHINOFF: Yes. We did.
24 MS. LARKINS: Okay. Instead of handing them
25 all in a bunch, where it will be hard, I'm sure you can
5 line 1 figure out what they are faster than I can. Do you have
2 the bate stamped Document Number 5?
3 MR. SHINOFF: We have many bate stamped
4 documents in our office, and we were attempting to figure
5 out precisely what it was that you were looking for, but
6 we do have a bate stamped Document Number 5 dated April
7 26, 2001 from yourself to Mr. Werlin.
8 MS. LARKINS: Okay. You know, I'm a little
9 confused here. Isn't Mr. Artiano supposed to be talking?
10 MR. SHINOFF: No, not right now. Not right
11 now, because you asked me about documents that are
being
12 produced; and so, as counsel, I'm telling you what we
13 have produced.
14 MS. LARKINS: Okay.
15 MR. SHINOFF: We brought a series of documents
16 bate stamped 1 through 70 -- or through 84.
17 (EXH. 1 was marked for identification.)
18 BY MS. LARKINS:
19 Q. Okay. I'd like to have this marked as Exhibit
20 Number 1. It is my notice of taking deposition and
21 request for production of documents. And here is a copy
22 for you, Mr. Artiano. Does this document look familiar
23 to you?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 Q. Okay. Would you look at the second page. And
page 6 line
8 A. Well, the document speaks for itself. I'm not
9 here to read, ma'am.
10 Q. Okay. Well, I'm going to consider you a
11 hostile witness, and this is how I'm going to do it. I
12 will ask you if it says a certain thing. I'm going to
13 need my copy.
14 Mr. Artiano, on page 2, line 15 of Exhibit 1,
15 do you see the sentence, "The bate stamps begin with
the
16 number 1, not 01 or 001, and continue through 87"?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Okay. Do you have a document that is bate
19 stamped with a 5, not a 05 or a 005?
20 A. Not to my knowledge.
21 MR. SHINOFF: Nor do I.
22 BY MS. LARKINS:
23 Q. Well, that is very interesting. How about a
24 document that is bate stamped 06 -- 6, not 06?
25 A. Not to my knowledge.
page 7 line 1 MR. SHINOFF: Nor do I.
2 BY MS. LARKINS:
3 Q. Did you bring any of the documents that are
4 specifically numbered here in paragraph 1 on page 2 of
5 this exhibit?
6 A. Based on what we could make out from your
7 request, we had the documents gathered, which
8 Mr. Shinoff, my attorney, brought with him.
9 Q. Well, it would appear that either intentionally
10 or unintentionally, you ignored this last sentence in
11 this first document request.
So I'm asking you, now that
12 I'm making it really clear to you that the documents I'm
13 talking about don't have any zeroes in front of the
14 single digits, did you bring any of those?
15 A. I just answered that.
…
21 BY MS. LARKINS:
22 Q. Okay. Did you bring a document that is bate
23 stamped with a 9, not a 09?
24 A. Not to my knowledge.
25 Q. Did you bring a document that is bate stamped
page 8 line 1 09?
2 MR. SHINOFF: Yes.
3 BY MS. LARKINS:
4 Q. And what is that document, Mr. Artiano?
5 A. That document is a letter dated -- actually, it
6 is undated; although, there is a Chula Vista Elementary
7 School Human Resources stamp that says June 4th, 2002.
8 It is addressed to a Dr. Gill from Maura Larkins.
9 Q. And do you believe that the Maura Larkins who
10 wrote this letter is the person who is taking your
11 deposition right now?
12 A. I assume so.
13 Q. Well, why would you think that I would want a
14 copy of my own letter?
15 A. I have no idea what's in your mind, ma'am.
16 Q. I wanted a document that your law firm has been
17 refusing to produce for several years. I'm very
18 disappointed that you are still not producing it…
25 MS. LARKINS: Is it not true, Mr. Shinoff, that
1 you actually used your best efforts not to produce the
2 documents I requested?
3 MR. SHINOFF: That's not true. And I'm not
4 going to argue with you.
5 BY MS. LARKINS:
6 Q. Did you bring a bate stamped document 11 that
7 was not written by me?
8 MR. SHINOFF: We brought a Bate stamped
9 document 11.
10 MS. LARKINS: Was it written by me?
11 MR. SHINOFF: I don't know. It has your
12 initials by it.
13 MS. LARKINS: Does it have my name on it?
14 MR. SHINOFF: It has your name on it, yes.
15 MS. LARKINS: Does it say "from Maura Larkins"?
16 MR. SHINOFF: It does.
17 MS. LARKINS: But you are not sure if it
18 actually is from Maura Larkins?
19 MR. SHINOFF: Only you could authenticate
20 whether that document is from you, but it appears to be
21 from you…
page 10 line 13 BY MS. LARKINS:
14 Q. Uhm. Mr. Shinoff -- Mr. Artiano, did you do a
15 search for the documents I asked for?
16 A. I had a paralegal do a search for the documents
17 which you asked for.
18 Q. You had a paralegal do the search?
19 A. Yes.
20 MS. LARKINS: Okay. May I look through the
21 documents?
22 MR. SHINOFF: Certainly.
23 MS. LARKINS: I believe that the documents that
24 you have here are completely separate, a completely
25 separate group of documents from the ones I wanted.
line1 MR. SHINOFF: Well, I think you need to be
2 clearer then in terms of what you want.
3 MS. LARKINS: Mr. Shinoff, I faxed to Kelly
4 Angell the documents that you did produce. Well,
5 actually, you didn't produce them, but Parham Rajcic
6 produced them from my administrative hearing so that she
7 could easily determine what were the missing documents.
8 Your law firm has had years to produce these
9 documents; and, apparently, they must be
very harmful to
10 your case or you would have produced them.
11 MR. SHINOFF: Well, you can entertain whatever
12 fantasy you wish to engage in; and I know that you are
13 prone to fantasies, but I respectfully
disagree with your
14 characterization.
15 MS. LARKINS: Mr. Shinoff, did you seek a
16 protective order from discovery in my case when I sued
17 Chula Vista Elementary School District?
18 MR. SHINOFF: My deposition isn't being taken.
19 MS. LARKINS: Oh, that is really confusing.
20 Uhm. I have got to get more. I've got to get you
21 talking more, Mr. Artiano. I have got to remember that
22 it is not Mr. Shinoff's deposition being taken.
23 BY MS. LARKINS:
24 Q. Did your law firm, Mr. Artiano, seek one or
25 more protective orders in -- when I -- in the case when
page 12 line 1 you were defending the Chula Vista Elementary
School
2 District and other associated defendants?
3 A. I have no idea.
7 School Human Resources stamp that says June 4th, 2002.
8 It is addressed to a Dr. Gill from Maura Larkins.
9 Q. And do you believe that the Maura Larkins who
10 wrote this letter is the person who is taking your
11 deposition right now?
12 A. I assume so.
13 Q. Well, why would you think that I would want a
14 copy of my own letter?
15 A. I have no idea what's in your mind, ma'am.
16 Q. I wanted a document that your law firm has been
17 refusing to produce for several years. I'm very
18 disappointed that you are still not producing it…
25 MS. LARKINS: Is it not true, Mr. Shinoff, that
1 you actually used your best efforts not to produce the
2 documents I requested?
3 MR. SHINOFF: That's not true. And I'm not
4 going to argue with you.
5 BY MS. LARKINS:
6 Q. Did you bring a bate stamped document 11 that
7 was not written by me?
8 MR. SHINOFF: We brought a Bate stamped
9 document 11.
10 MS. LARKINS: Was it written by me?
11 MR. SHINOFF: I don't know. It has your
12 initials by it.
13 MS. LARKINS: Does it have my name on it?
14 MR. SHINOFF: It has your name on it, yes.
15 MS. LARKINS: Does it say "from Maura Larkins"?
16 MR. SHINOFF: It does.
17 MS. LARKINS: But you are not sure if it
18 actually is from Maura Larkins?
19 MR. SHINOFF: Only you could authenticate
20 whether that document is from you, but it appears to be
21 from you…
page 10 line 13 BY MS. LARKINS:
14 Q. Uhm. Mr. Shinoff -- Mr. Artiano, did you do a
15 search for the documents I asked for?
16 A. I had a paralegal do a search for the documents
17 which you asked for.
18 Q. You had a paralegal do the search?
19 A. Yes.
20 MS. LARKINS: Okay. May I look through the
21 documents?
22 MR. SHINOFF: Certainly.
23 MS. LARKINS: I believe that the documents that
24 you have here are completely separate, a completely
25 separate group of documents from the ones I wanted.
line1 MR. SHINOFF: Well, I think you need to be
2 clearer then in terms of what you want.
3 MS. LARKINS: Mr. Shinoff, I faxed to Kelly
4 Angell the documents that you did produce. Well,
5 actually, you didn't produce them, but Parham Rajcic
6 produced them from my administrative hearing so that she
7 could easily determine what were the missing documents.
8 Your law firm has had years to produce these
9 documents; and, apparently, they must be
very harmful to
10 your case or you would have produced them.
11 MR. SHINOFF: Well, you can entertain whatever
12 fantasy you wish to engage in; and I know that you are
13 prone to fantasies, but I respectfully
disagree with your
14 characterization.
15 MS. LARKINS: Mr. Shinoff, did you seek a
16 protective order from discovery in my case when I sued
17 Chula Vista Elementary School District?
18 MR. SHINOFF: My deposition isn't being taken.
19 MS. LARKINS: Oh, that is really confusing.
20 Uhm. I have got to get more. I've got to get you
21 talking more, Mr. Artiano. I have got to remember that
22 it is not Mr. Shinoff's deposition being taken.
23 BY MS. LARKINS:
24 Q. Did your law firm, Mr. Artiano, seek one or
25 more protective orders in -- when I -- in the case when
page 12 line 1 you were defending the Chula Vista Elementary
School
2 District and other associated defendants?
3 A. I have no idea.
| [Mr. Shinoff was scheduled to be deposed later on this same day, but he did not show up, and he never filed either an objection or a motion for protective order.] |
| Deposition of Ray Artiano* page 4, line 22 through page 12, line 3 |
page 14
7 MR. SHINOFF: There is a disconnect, obviously,
8 between what you wrote down and what you wanted to
have.
9 So I believe that we did a reasonable, good faith search
10 to determine what documents were responsive to your
11 request for production.
12 MS. LARKINS: Did you read the last line in
13 this paragraph that is numbered one?
14 MR. SHINOFF: The paralegal was charged with
15 the responsibility for looking for the documents. So she
16 looked through multiple documents, and that's what she
17 found.
18 MS. LARKINS: Well, perhaps it's the
19 paralegal's fault. Perhaps she didn't read that
20 sentence.
21 MR. SHINOFF: She's a very fine paralegal.
22 MS. LARKINS: Well, this a very fine sentence.
23 It is very clear.
7 MR. SHINOFF: There is a disconnect, obviously,
8 between what you wrote down and what you wanted to
have.
9 So I believe that we did a reasonable, good faith search
10 to determine what documents were responsive to your
11 request for production.
12 MS. LARKINS: Did you read the last line in
13 this paragraph that is numbered one?
14 MR. SHINOFF: The paralegal was charged with
15 the responsibility for looking for the documents. So she
16 looked through multiple documents, and that's what she
17 found.
18 MS. LARKINS: Well, perhaps it's the
19 paralegal's fault. Perhaps she didn't read that
20 sentence.
21 MR. SHINOFF: She's a very fine paralegal.
22 MS. LARKINS: Well, this a very fine sentence.
23 It is very clear.
Ray Artiano deposition, page 17 line
3 through page 21 line 24.
3 through page 21 line 24.
16 come to my knowledge that there
have been a number of
17 individuals who have googled the
name of the website.
18 And that, in turn, has led them to
your San Diego, I'm
19 not sure what, San Diego Education
Report Website.
20 And I know that it has caused concern
on the
21 part of at least one attorney. I'm
assuming that anyone
22 who googles us, as most clients and
prospective clients
23 do, they'll come across your website
and know nothing at
24 all about the author of the website
and whether or not
25 the statements have any truth at all.
1 BY MS. LARKINS:
2 Q. If they knew more about the
author of the
3 website, what would they know, that
you seem to imply
4 that there is something to be known
that isn't on my
5 website, I mean?
6 A. Well, what they would know is
that the
7 statements, which you have made
impugning the integrity
8 and character of the firm, are false.
9 In addition, I also know that, at
least, at the
10 very least, one new attorney in our
firm googled our
11 website prior to making a decision as
to whether or not
12 he was going to join the firm, and
then had to -- had to
13 check around after he saw the
materials on your website
14 to determine who this person was
and why these things
15 were being said so that he could
determine whether or not
16 he should join our firm.
17 I assume that there are a
number of prospective
18 candidates, as well as clients that we
have, that do
19 exactly the same thing, come across
the same information,
20 and it causes them concern.
21 Q. Okay. Well, it seems to me
that you have done
22 a pretty good argument for
saying that my website has not
23 harmed your firm. The only
evidence you have is that
24 someone read my website and
then came to your firm.
have been a number of
17 individuals who have googled the
name of the website.
18 And that, in turn, has led them to
your San Diego, I'm
19 not sure what, San Diego Education
Report Website.
20 And I know that it has caused concern
on the
21 part of at least one attorney. I'm
assuming that anyone
22 who googles us, as most clients and
prospective clients
23 do, they'll come across your website
and know nothing at
24 all about the author of the website
and whether or not
25 the statements have any truth at all.
1 BY MS. LARKINS:
2 Q. If they knew more about the
author of the
3 website, what would they know, that
you seem to imply
4 that there is something to be known
that isn't on my
5 website, I mean?
6 A. Well, what they would know is
that the
7 statements, which you have made
impugning the integrity
8 and character of the firm, are false.
9 In addition, I also know that, at
least, at the
10 very least, one new attorney in our
firm googled our
11 website prior to making a decision as
to whether or not
12 he was going to join the firm, and
then had to -- had to
13 check around after he saw the
materials on your website
14 to determine who this person was
and why these things
15 were being said so that he could
determine whether or not
16 he should join our firm.
17 I assume that there are a
number of prospective
18 candidates, as well as clients that we
have, that do
19 exactly the same thing, come across
the same information,
20 and it causes them concern.
21 Q. Okay. Well, it seems to me
that you have done
22 a pretty good argument for
saying that my website has not
23 harmed your firm. The only
evidence you have is that
24 someone read my website and
then came to your firm.
page 19
21 BY MS. LARKINS:
22 Q. Okay. Is there any particular client
that you
23 have lost as a result of my website that you
know of?
24 A. I don't know at this time if there is
any
25 particular client that we have lost as a
result of your
1 defamatory statements.
2 Q. Mr. Artiano, they are only
defamatory if they
3 are false.
4 MR. SHINOFF: Again, I'm going to
object that
5 the question is argumentative as phrased;
and I would
6 respectfully request that you ask a question.
7 BY MS. LARKINS:
8 Q. Okay. You say that you don't know
at this
9 time. Why didn't you find out if you had lost
a client
10 before you filed this suit saying that you
had $100,000
11 of damages?
12 A. You want me to answer that?
13 MR. SHINOFF: Sure. Go ahead.
14 THE WITNESS: Because of the
defamatory
15 statements, which you have made on your
website, it has (contd.)
21 BY MS. LARKINS:
22 Q. Okay. Is there any particular client
that you
23 have lost as a result of my website that you
know of?
24 A. I don't know at this time if there is
any
25 particular client that we have lost as a
result of your
1 defamatory statements.
2 Q. Mr. Artiano, they are only
defamatory if they
3 are false.
4 MR. SHINOFF: Again, I'm going to
object that
5 the question is argumentative as phrased;
and I would
6 respectfully request that you ask a question.
7 BY MS. LARKINS:
8 Q. Okay. You say that you don't know
at this
9 time. Why didn't you find out if you had lost
a client
10 before you filed this suit saying that you
had $100,000
11 of damages?
12 A. You want me to answer that?
13 MR. SHINOFF: Sure. Go ahead.
14 THE WITNESS: Because of the
defamatory
15 statements, which you have made on your
website, it has (contd.)