Los Angeles Transit Lines v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 1953 No. Civ. 19602Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's order for the production of witness statements was improper because the moving party failed to make a sufficient showing that the documents were competent, admissible, and material to the issues.

Issues

Whether the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by ordering the production of documents without a sufficient showing of materiality and admissibility.
Whether a petition for a writ of prohibition may be treated as a petition for a writ of mandate to vacate an improper discovery order.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The right given by statute to discover books, papers, and documents relating to the merits of a pending action does not entitle a party to enter into a mere fishing examination of all books, papers, and documents of his adversary.”

[466]

DORAN, J.

This application which has been denominated a “petition for a writ of prohibition” relates to an order “pursuant to C.C.P. section 1000” which provides that the court may make such an order on notice, as further provided in section 1010. Said notice must be in writing and “state when and the grounds upon which it will be made.”

The action was for damages for personal injuries by

Jack Gill and Bertha Gill

Los Angeles Transit Lines and G. E. Moore.

The notice of motion provided “that plaintiff will move the court . . . for an order . . . permitting plaintiffs to inspect and copy documents or papers in your possession or under your control, containing evidence relating to the merits of the above entitled action or the defense therein.

“The documents and papers which plaintiffs will seek to have the Court order produced are as follows:

“1. Any statement made by defendant G. K. Moore to defendant Los Angeles Transit Lines concerning the manner in which the accident in the above entitled cause occurred; or any statement which an agent, servant or employee of Los Angeles Transit Lines made to Los Angeles Transit Lines concerning the manner in which the accident in the above entitled cause occurred, and all papers, notes and memoranda which disclose oral statements made by an agent, servant or employee of Los Angeles Transit Lines to Los Angeles Transit Lines regarding such accident.

“2. All statements of witnesses which contain evidence or matters relating to the above entitled action, or the accident giving rise thereto, and all papers, notes and memoranda which disclose oral statements made by witnesses to such accident.”

The court denied the motion as to paragraph “1” above quoted but granted it as to paragraph “2”. The order is as follows:

“It Is Hereby Ordered and Decreed that on Tuesday, March 10, at 10:00 A. M., defendants produce a* the efSee ef Stanley Fleishman; 6331 Hollywood Boulevard; Hollywood,Galifernia; the felle-wi-ng documents and papers and permit the inspection, thereof and the copying and

Los Angeles Transit Lines v. Superior Court

AI Brief

DORAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. S. Smith Met. Market Co.

AI Brief