City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court
Before: Draper
DRAPER, J.
This petition for writ of prohibition deals with discovery proceedings in a pending action for personal injuries. In that action, Mr. and Mrs. Giorgi (real parties in interest herein) are plaintiffs and petitioner city and county is the sole defendant. The complaint alleges that a municipal bus was so negligently operated as to cause it to collide with the Giorgi automobile from the rear, injuring Mrs. Giorgi and damaging the ear. The answer denies negligence and alleges contributory negligence.
Plaintiffs took the deposition of the bus driver, who is not a party to the action. He testified that immediately after the accident he took the names and addresses of two passengers on the bus and, at the end of the day, delivered to his dispatcher the memorandum bearing these names and addresses, which was later forwarded to the city attorney. At the time
[655]
of his deposition, the driver did not remember either the names or the addresses. Plaintiffs served upon defendant written interrogatories (Code Civ. Proe., § 2030) concerning these two witnesses. Defendant filed its written objections (Code Civ. Proe., § 2030, subd. (a)) to the interrogatories upon the sole ground that the information sought is within the attorney-client privilege (Code Civ. Proe., § 1881, subd. (2)). After hearing, the court announced that it would make its written order directing defendant to answer one interrogatory, that seeking the names and addresses of the two passenger-witnesses. The minutes recite “ordered (defendant) to answer questions.” Before written order was signed, defendant filed this petition for writ restraining enforcement of the order.
An order to answer is not appealable and prohibition is the proper remedy.
(Holm
v.
Superior Court,
42 Cal.2d 500 [267 P.2d 1025, 268 P.2d 722].) Where, as here, the' question has been determined and minute order entered, the mere fact that application for the writ preceded formal signing of a written order does not prevent recourse to the remedy of prohibition. (See
Lankton
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)