Print document
 1 of 1 
 
A representative copy of the filing
1
___________________________________________________________________________
Supplemental Declaration Reply to Supplemental Declaration P. Sturdevant
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,
   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. GIN024734  
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION IN REPLY TO
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
PATRICIA STURDEVANT IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
PLAINTIFF
Date:   July 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 the envelope postmarked
April 1, 2003 in which Attorney Patricia Sturdevant's April 1, 2003 letter was mailed to
me.  (Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, Exhibit  No. 2)
RECEIVED
2003 JUL -2   PM  1:23
NORTH COUNTY DIVISION
SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT
2
___________________________________________________________________________
Supplemental Declaration Reply to Supplemental Declaration P. Sturdevant
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
3.
I make this declaration in reply to Attorney Patricia Sturdevant's Supplemental
Declaration in Support of Defendants' Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiff dated 
    June 26, 2003. 
4.
Ms. Sturdevant declares that:
¶ 3.  "In addition to the time set forth in the June 3 declaration, I also spent 2.9 hours 
on April 1, 2003, researching issues related to appropriate discovery in this case, in 
particular, the deposition of the Agency Secretary, and drafting the April 1 letter to 
Plaintiff/Petitioner."  (Declaration, p. 2, lines 5-8)
¶ 4.  "Because Plaintiff/Petitioner indicates that there will be no hearing on her motion,
it will not be necessary to incur the 1.5 hours estimated in the earlier Declaration to 
prepare for and argue the Motion."  (Declaration, p. 2, lines 9-11) 
¶ 5.  "Plaintiff/Petitioner correctly points out a mathematical error in computing the 
amount of fees requested in the prior Declaration, which incorrectly understated the 
amount sought."  (Declaration, p. 2, lines 12-16)
¶ 6.  "The corrected number of hours which defendants have incurred in attorney's 
time in connection with Plaintiff/Petitioner's seeking to depose the Agency Secretary 
and in responding to Plaintiff/Petitioner's motion for protective order and to compel is
20.55 hours of work, consisting of the following:
a. A total of 2.9 hours on April 1, 2003, to research discovery issues and draft a 
letter to Plaintiff/Petitioner. 
b. A total of 15.65 hours researching and drafting Defendants/Respondents' 
opposition to Plaintiff/Petitioner's motion for a protective order, to compel 
deposition testimony, and for sanctions. 
c. A total of 1.5 hours drafting the June 3rd Declaration in support of 
Defendants/Respondents' request for sanctions for abuses of discovery.
d. A total of 0.5 hours drafting this Supplemental Declaration."  (p. 2, lines 15-26)
"The rate established by the Department of Managed Health Care for my salary and 
benefits is approximately $60 an hour.  Multiplying that rate times 20.55 hours yields 
a total of $1,233." (Declaration, p. 2, lines 27-28, p. 3, line 1)
"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 2-3)
3
___________________________________________________________________________
Supplemental Declaration Reply to Supplemental Declaration P. Sturdevant
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
5.
Ms. Sturdevant's supplemental declaration was apparently filed for one sole purpose,
i.e.:
"to cure the omission, omit one estimated entry for future time to appear and argue
the motion which will not be necessary, and provide a corrected total requested 
amount for attorney's fees."  (Declaration, p. 2, lines 2-4)
Her supplemental declaration has raised additional questions, all further confirming 
Ms. Sturdevant's pattern of lying to plaintiff, perjury to the Court and/or a combination
of dishonesty and legal misconduct.
6.
Ms. Sturdevant does not address the salient point in my Reply (Declaration, p. 3, lines
7-9) i.e.:
"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."
7.
Ms. Sturdevant continues to declare to the Court, under penalty of perjury, that she
performed an additional 15.65 hours researching and drafting defendants' opposition to
my motion.  If  Ms. Sturdevant had determined that no authority supported my motion
on April 1, 2003, why did she perform additional research at all?
8.
In her April 1, 2003 letter Ms. Sturdevant states:
   
 
"Please be advised that should you attempt to notice her deposition, we will seek a
  protective order and an order to pay our fees for doing so."
   Ms. Sturdevant does not state that defendants' research performed prior to and/or on 
   April 1, 2003, as a consequence of my March 18, 2003 letter, would ever be charged 
    to me.  The cost of Ms. Sturdevant's research, if any, is irrelevant because the research 
    supports my taking Secretary Contreras-Sweet's deposition.
9.
Ms. Sturdevant's April 1, 2003 letter to me did not cite any authorities other than Nagle
to support her position.  Her citation of additional authorities did not occur until her
June 3, 2003 filing with this Court.  She neither explains nor documents her 2.9 research
hours on April 1, 2003.
10. Her reasons for performing additional research remain unanswered.  It is apparent that
she may have not performed any research in support of her April 1, 2003 statement that
no authority supported the Secretary's deposition.  When I filed my Motion with the
4
___________________________________________________________________________
Supplemental Declaration Reply to Supplemental Declaration P. Sturdevant
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
Court, she states that she was then compelled to perform 15.65 research/drafting hours,
citing three case authorities for the Court. 
11. I sent my letter of intent to notice Secretary Contreras-Sweet's deposition to Ms.
Sturdevant on March 18, 2003 by fax and by certified mail.  (Motion, Exhibit No.1) 
12. Ms. Sturdevant's declarations and papers do not state any facts regarding defendants'
activities pertaining to their actions in response to my letter between March 18, 2003
and March 31, 2003, an approximate 10 day time period.  Logic dictates that research
would have commenced and proceeded prior to April 1, 2003, if she and defendants'
attorneys had performed any. 
13. Federal Express confirmed that Ms. Sturdevant received my Reply and Declaration on
June 25, 2003.   Ms. Sturdevant's Supplemental Declaration indicates that somehow she
is able to document on June 26, 2003 (one day later) that she spent a total of 2.9 hours
on April 1, 2003 to research discovery issues and draft a letter to me.
14. She has not produced any documentation to support her revised version of events and
her heretofore undisclosed 2.9 hours of research.
15. Ms. Sturdevant's June 3, 2003 Opposition cited only three cases (in addition to my
citation of Nagle) to support her position that no authority supports my "extraordinary
request" to depose a busy, top government official.  (Opposition p. 6, lines 10-28 and p.
7, lines 1-5)  The three additional cases, she cited, were decided in 1978, 1983, and
1981 respectively.  (Opposition p. 6, lines 10-28 and p. 7, lines 1-5)  
Obviously, these cases prove that requests to take the depositions of top
government officials are not "extraordinary requests."  Moreover, her most recent case
is dated 1983.  As requests to take the depositions of top government officials are not
extraordinary and, as she has cited no cases more recent than 1983, it is my experience,
as a former government investigator who required such research, that government
agencies maintain a repository of research, including but not limited to, research
pertaining to the depositions of top public officials that is made available and promoted
to government attorneys. 
Ms. Sturdevant does not require 2.9 plus 15.65 hours to reinvent the wheel, i.e., to
restate research already performed by other attorneys, which is available to her. 
5
___________________________________________________________________________
Supplemental Declaration Reply to Supplemental Declaration P. Sturdevant
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
16. Since she has twice declared to the Court that the totality of her research and letter
drafting occurred on April 1, 2003, it is relevant and necessary to test the truth of Ms.
Sturdevant's statements by examining her activities and the activities of her colleagues
on that date through relevant interrogation.
    Examples of relevant questions include the following:
What time did she arrive at her office on April 1, 2003?  Are there credible
witnesses to authenticate her arrival time?
What times did she perform her research?  Did she prepare one or more draft
documents pertaining to her research?  Who typed the documents and how much
time did these tasks take?  Did she discuss these documents with her supervising
attorneys, Ms. Cavanagh, Mr. Novello and Ms. Denton?  When?  How much
time did these discussions take?  Were these discussions reduced to writing? 
Did they instruct her to perform additional research?  Were additional
documents produced?  Who typed them?  How much time was expended?  
Did she and/or these attorneys discuss this letter and/or drafts with other
persons?  What is the identity of these persons?  At what time(s) did these
discussions begin and end?  Were additional documents produced?  Who
produced them?  What form did they take?  Did anyone instruct defendants'
attorneys to perform additional tasks regarding this research?  Who?  What? 
When?   
At what time did Ms. Sturdevant draft her final letter to me?  Who typed the
letter?  Was the letter a draft document or the final copy sent to me?  Did Ms.
Sturdevant's supervising attorneys review the draft/final letter?  At what time(s)
did they review this document?  Were additional documents produced?  Did
they instruct Ms. Sturdevant to revise her letter?
Did she and/or defendants' attorneys discuss the final letter with other persons? 
What is the identity of those persons?  At what time(s) did these discussions
begin and end?  Did anyone instruct defendants' attorneys to revise this letter?
Did Ms. Sturdevant eat lunch on April 1, 2003?  At what times did her lunch
begin and end?  Did she eat alone?  Where?  With whom?
6
___________________________________________________________________________
Supplemental Declaration Reply to Supplemental Declaration P. Sturdevant
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
At what time did Ms. Sturdevant or another employee cause this letter to be
mailed?  
At what time did Ms. Sturdevant depart her office for the day on April 1, 2003? 
Are there credible witnesses to authenticate her departure time?
17. Ms. Sturdevant's April 1, 2003 letter was mailed to me on that exact date.  Exhibit No. 1
(the envelope in which I received her letter) clearly shows two April 1, 2003 machine
cancellation stamps, one by USPS and the other by defendants' own postage meter.
18. Although this date is April Fools Day, April 1, 2003 was a normal, 24 hour day with a
presently undetermined number of hours devoted to work.  Given the preceding
questions and facts, there is more than sufficient information to believe that Ms.
Sturdevant's 2.9 hour number in her June 26, 2003 Supplemental Declaration is bogus.
It is likely that all numbers in both her declarations to this Court are perjury. 
19. Defendants now request that this Court order me to pay for their own errors, omissions
and lies.  As an individual patient who exercised my right to petition, I should not be
forced to subsidize defendants' violation of my rights that shocks the conscience. 
Especially oppressive and appalling are the charges of:
$90.00 (1.5 hours times $60) to draft Ms. Sturdevant's incompetent and
dishonest June 3, 2003 declaration.
$30.00 (0.5 hours times $60) to draft Ms. Sturdevant's supplemental declaration
to attempt to cover up defendants' attorneys' incompetence and dishonesty.
20. On June 26, 2003, Ms. Sturdevant further "cooked her books" through lies, i.e.,
"estimated" and "approximate" numbers that result in more hours at present than she
claimed on June 3, 2003.  Her total hours were increased to 20.55 hours from 18.65
hours, a 1.9 hour/$114.00 increase, invented within one day of her receipt of my Reply
on June 25, 2003.  The increase was intended to punish and deter me from correcting
their statements made under oath.
21. I respectfully request the Court to hold an in-person hearing.  Only a hearing at which
witnesses will be examined and documents can be authenticated under oath can test the
truth of defendants' attorneys' statements.  If they were telling the truth, Ms. Sturdevant
would demand a hearing, the outcome of which could be the full vindication of
defendants' attorneys' performance.
7
___________________________________________________________________________
Supplemental Declaration Reply to Supplemental Declaration P. Sturdevant
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
22. I respectfully request:
an award to me of the sum of $3,699.00 as treble sanctions (defendants' request
for sanctions times three, i.e., $1,233 x 3 = $3,699).  I have spent in excess of
100 hours to prepare my Motion, Reply, Declarations, Exhibits and incurred
associated production costs.  Defendants have not attacked my facts.  My work
quality is well valued at this dollar amount.  My honesty and integrity are
uncompromised.
a protective order requiring defendants to comply with the letter and spirit of
California Code of Civil Procedure in discovery pursuant to this case, prohibiting
coercion and retaliation.
a stay in responding to defendants' 1st Set of Interrogatories until completion of
Secretary Contreras-Sweet's deposition.
an order that Secretary Maria Contreras-Sweet be compelled to attend and
cooperate at her deposition pursuant to the time and date of formal notice.
I have read the foregoing motion and this declaration, consisting of one exhibit, and declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct. 
Executed on this 2nd day of July, 2003 at Encinitas, Ca.
_________________________
Jacquelyn Finney
In Pro Per