South Tahoe Public Utility District v. Superior Court

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Petitioner applies for a writ of prohibition and/or mandate following the trial court’s issuance of an order compelling petitioner to answer an interrogatory calling for disclosure of the names and addresses of experts it had consulted with and who might be called to testify at a presently unscheduled trial.

[137]

“Preliminarily, it may be observed that the prerogative writ is not the favored method of reviewing discovery orders. Ordinarily the aggrieved party must raise the issue on direct appeal from a final judgment.

(Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.

v.

Superior Court,

2 Cal.3d 161, 169 . . . ;

Oceanside Union School Dist.

v.

Superior Court,

58 Cal.2d 180, 185-186, fn. 4 . . . .) The premise upon which this general policy rests is that in the great majority of cases the delay due to interim review of discovery orders is likely to result in greater harm to the judicial process by reason of protracted delay than is the enforcement of a possibly improper discovery order. (2 Cal.3d at p. 170.)”

(Sav-On Drugs, Inc.

v.

Superior Court

(1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 5 [123 Cal.Rptr. 283, 538 P.2d 739].)

“[I]n most such cases, as is true of most other interim orders, the parties must be relegated to a review of the order on appeal from the final judgment. As inadequate as such review may be in some cases, the prerogative writs should only be used in discovery matters to review questions that are of general importance to the trial courts and to the profession, and where general guidelines can be laid down for future cases.”

(Oceanside Union School Dist.