Print document
 1 of 1 
 
A representative copy of the filing
1
Declaration J. Finney Reply Re Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion PO-Order to Compel & Sanctions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JACQUELYN FINNEY
Encinitas, CA 92024
In Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JACQUELYN FINNEY
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED
HEALTH CARE; DANIEL ZINGALE,
DIRECTOR; ANDREW GEORGE, SENIOR
STAFF COUNSEL, HMO HELP CENTER; DOES 1
- 100,
Respondent and Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: No. GIN024734
DECLARATION OF JACQUELYN FINNEY IN
SUPPORT OF REPLY TO DEFENDANTS'
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER, ORDER TO COMPEL & 
SANCTIONS (EXHIBITS)
Date:    June 10, 2003
Time:   3:00 p.m.
Dept:    30
Judge:   Hon. Thomas P. Nugent
[Telephonic Ruling (760) 806-6050
I, JACQUELYN FINNEY, hereby declare as follows:
1.  I am the plaintiff In Pro Per in the above-captioned case.
2.  Attached hereto as Exhibit No.1 is a true and accurate copy of a document I obtained from
defendant DMHC's website.  The document is identified as follows:
"ADVISORY NO. 2 REGARDING 1999 LEGISLATION"
3.  Attached hereto, as Exhibit No. 2,  is a true and accurate copy of a document I obtained from
the National Association of Governors' website.  The document is identified as follows:
"State of California Governor Gray Davis, Governor's Office"
4.  I make this declaration in reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiff's Motion.
5.  Ms Sturdevant declares that:
(¶1) "I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California since 1972.  
I am staff counsel at the Department of Managed Health Care and the 
attorney of record for defendants and the responding party in this matter."  
(Declaration p.1. lines 19-22)
(¶4) "Prior to plaintiff's filing of her motion for a protective order and order to 
compel the deposition, she made no attempt whatsoever to informally 
RECEIVED
2003 Jun 23  PM  12:58
   NORTH COUNTY DIVISION
       SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT
2
Declaration J. Finney Reply Re Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion PO-Order to Compel & Sanctions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
resolve the disputed issues or to narrow the discovery requests."  
(Declaration p. 2, lines 6-8)
(¶6) "As a consequence of plaintiff's filing of her motion for a protective order 
and order to compel, defendants have incurred and will incur reasonable 
expenses and attorney's fees in connection with this motion and the hearing 
thereon for approximately 18.65 hours of work on these issues, consisting of 
the following:
a. A total of 15.65 hours of researching…
b. A total of 1.5 hours drafting this Declaration…
c. An estimate of 1.5 hours to be spent preparing for the hearing and 
    attending the hearing on the motion without consideration of travel time.  
      (Declaration p. 2, lines 12-22.)
"The rate established by the Department of Managed Health Care for my salary and
benefits is approximately $60.00 an hour.  Multiplying that rate times 16.25 hours yields a total
of $1,119."  (Declaration p. 3, lines 1-3)
"I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.  (Declaration p. 3 lines 4-5.) 
6.  I find Ms. Sturdevant's declaration to be inconsistent with the facts of my Motion, with the
laws of the State of California and with the law of mathematics, causing me to believe that she and
defendants' attorneys have lied to me and/or have made perjurious statements to the Court.
7.  On April 1, 2003 Ms. Sturdevant wrote that no authority supported my request to take the
Secretary's deposition.  I logically assumed that she had performed all necessary research to support her
statement.  Her statement was intended not only to convince me not to pursue my motion to compel this
deposition, but to threaten me financially if I merely noticed the Secretary's deposition.
If she had performed her research "as a consequence of plaintiff's filing of her motion" on May 1,
2003, she lied to me that no authority supported the deposition on 
April 1, 2003, as she had not yet acted to obtain that knowledge.   
8.  As an attorney with 30 years experience, Ms. Sturdevant knows that the outcome of lying to
the Court in her declaration, under penalty of perjury, is sanctions, if she is caught.  Only Ms.
Sturdevant's testimony under oath and the testimony of defendants' attorneys under oath, supported by
timesheets, calendars, telephone, computer and other records will enable a factfinder to determine if her
statements to me and to the court are lies, perjury, or combined forms of dishonesty and legal
misconduct.
9.  Ms. Sturdevant's declaration does not compute either factually or mathematically, further
demonstrating her lack of diligence, competence and honesty.  Her multiplication total of 16.25 hours by
$60 per hour equals $975.00, not $1,119 that she demands.  She does not state the origin and
justification of the number of 16.25 hours, which leads me to believe that all her stated number of hours
3
Declaration J. Finney Reply Re Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion PO-Order to Compel & Sanctions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to support her request for sanctions (in the total context of her contradictory statements and
mathematical miscalculations) must be tested to determine their truthfulness.
10.  Ms. Sturdevant's billable hours on all line items are questionable.  In addition to the
contradictory dates of her research, her "estimate of 1.5 hours to be spent preparing for and attending a
hearing on the motion, without consideration of travel time," is dishonest and/or incompetent.  My
Notice of Motion clearly specifies that the Court scheduled a Telephonic Ruling.  No preparation,
attendance or travel is required to dial the Court's telephone number or access the Court's website.  Nor
did Ms. Sturdevant request that the Court conduct an oral hearing to allow her to amplify the State's
argument in its papers.
11.  On March 18, 2003, I sent Ms. Sturdevant a materially correct notice to depose Secretary
Contreras-Sweet and a valid offer to meet and confer.  Her April 1, 2003 adamantine response,
threatening sanctions, was intended to chill further meet and confer efforts on my part.  Her April 4,
2003 Interrogatories continued her pattern of misconduct to force me to attempt to fully answer
questions without access to discovery pertaining to my answers.  California Code of Civil Procedure and
case law support my right to file my Motion for Protective Order and a stay in the discovery process to
compel defendants' attorneys and Secretary Contreras-Sweet to obey the law, at present and in the
future. 
12.  I ask the Court to sanction defendants' attorneys and Secretary Contreras-Sweet for violating
my rights and creating unnecessary hardship to me and the Court for their abuse of process and
dishonesty.
Defendants' papers indicate that Joan Cavanagh, Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement, has
been replaced by Acting Director, James Novello.  As Ms. Cavanagh supervised defendants' attorneys in
this action from the filing date of my October 11, 2002 Writ through the date of defendants'
Interrogatories on April 4, 2003 (Plaintiff's Motion, Exhibit No. 3 at p. 8),  I request that Ms. Cavanagh
be included in the Court's sanctions.
13.  Government employment is not the equivalent of a perverse witness protection program
through which the State's attorneys can deny me access to material witnesses through retaliation, if I
exercise my right to petition the Court.  I do not find that any court has ever upheld the unconstitutional
application of a statute by a public officer or agency empowered to effectuate it.  I request that this
Court protect me from defendants' misinterpretation of their statutory authority pursuant to the Knox-
Keene Act to gag, coerce, and retaliate in violation of the U.S. and California constitutions, common
law, case law, and public policy. 
I have read the foregoing motion and this declaration, consisting of these exhibits and declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 23rd day of June, 2003 at Encinitas, CA.
________________________________
Jacquelyn Finney, In Pro Per