E M O
Sturdevant, Staff Counsel
Office of Enforcement
Department of Managed Health Care
980 Ninth Street, Suite No. 500
Sacramento, CA 95814-2725
Finney, Plaintiff, In Pro Per
No. GIN024734: Defendants' Inspection Demand (September
to Reconsider Terminating Sanction
are aware that I have filed a Motion to Reconsider my request
for a Protective Order and Imposition of Sanctions, including
but not limited to, a terminating sanction pursuant to CCP §
2023(b)(4)(B) to stay further proceedings by defendants until
I have taken the deposition of Secretary Maria Contreras-Sweet.
both Judge Nugent on August 19, 2003 and Mr. James F. Novello,
on July 30, 2003, that I will appeal if the Court denies my
to Accommodate Disability/Refusal to Meet & Confer
that inspection of records shall be in downtown San Diego at
10:00 a.m. on October 3, 2003 demonstrates your continued pattern
of refusal to acknowledge and reasonably accommodate my disability
and your refusal to meet and confer. Rather, you continue to
demonstrate contempt for Local Rules of Court/Rules of Professional
Conduct by demanding that this litigation be conducted according
to "My Way or the Highway" tactics.
recognition and accommodation of disabled applicants for employment
as attorneys and nurses, but not for patients, is further evidence
of its contempt for patient rights by the very state bureaucracy,
mandated to enforce them.
that I produce all documents proving the broad range of contracts
pertinent to my cause of action only one day after Judge Nugent's
scheduled ruling, appears to be based on irrational optimism.
You have not explained why defendants maintain a firm conviction
that the Court will continue to ignore evidence proving your
intentional exploitation of my disability and other intentional
misconduct, supported by false declarations.
Predetermination of Court Rulings
irrational optimism, your inspection demand may be based upon
Mr. Novello's undisclosed rationale to support his conviction
that Judge Nugent and all California judges will continue to
chill my right to petition the court by violating my rights
under the Discovery Act and by imposing sanctions in reprisal
for my exposing your false statements and other illegal conduct,
as an In Pro Per plaintiff.
subtext of statements and conduct by you and Mr. Novello is
that all court rulings have been predetermined to favor the
State. However, I will act to eradicate any bias and prejudice
to appropriately advance my litigation in State and federal
Approval of Unconscionable Health Plan Contract
unlawful for Governor Davis' purported "patient rights
experts," employed by the Department of Managed Health
Care, to approve and condone unconscionable health plan contracts
of adhesion. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan has imposed prior
restraint of patient speech by an HMO and HMO physicians, as
a condition to receiving medically necessary contract benefits.
The contracts emanate from a secret "meet and confer"
arrangement initiated by DMHC.
know, Judge Nugent's February 20, 2003 Ruling specifically cited
Samura v. Kaiser. Having read this decision subsequent to Judge
Nugent's ruling, I direct your attention to Judge Newsome's
finding in that case:
… a health plan member could unquestionably present
a strong defense to the enforcement of the provision on this
[the Doctrine of Unconscionability]…"
willful blindness to unconscionable contracts of adhesion imposed
on subscribers by the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan violates
the Knox-Keene Act, California Public Policy and the U.S. and
DEMAND is premature. Moreover, I sent DMHC relevant documents
pursuant to my RFA, three Addenda, and pleadings in this case.
DMHC has had relevant documents pertaining to this Demand in
its possession from the files of its own employees, from individuals
representing the Pacific Business Group on Health (acting under
color of State law) and from documents submitted by Kaiser.
I intend to discover these documents, as is my right.
future, please telephone me to meet and confer on any matters
pertaining to discovery and other appropriate matters in this
litigation. Your contemptuous practices represent the antithesis
of good faith and judicial economy and have caused needless
delay in this litigation, as was your intent.
inform me if I should contact you and/or Mr. Novello regarding
meet and confer matters, as is appropriate.