To: Patricia Sturdevant, Staff Counsel
Office of Enforcement
Department of Managed Health Care
980 Ninth Street, Suite No. 500
Sacramento, CA 95814-2725

From: Jacquelyn Finney, Plaintiff, In Pro Per

Re: Case No. GIN024734: Defendants' Inspection Demand (September 3, 2003)

Date: September 12, 2003

Motion to Reconsider Terminating Sanction

You 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.

I informed 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 Motion.

Refusal to Accommodate Disability/Refusal to Meet & Confer

Your demand 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.

DMHC's 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.

Your demand 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

Absent 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.

The clear 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 courts.

Unlawful Approval of Unconscionable Health Plan Contract

It is 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.

As you 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:

"…[1c] … a health plan member could unquestionably present a strong defense to the enforcement of the provision on this ground
[the Doctrine of Unconscionability]…"

Defendants' 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 California Constitutions.

Inspection Demand

Your INSPECTION 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.

In the 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.

Please inform me if I should contact you and/or Mr. Novello regarding meet and confer matters, as is appropriate.