People v. SUPERIOR COURT (LYONS BUICK-OPEL-GMC.)

California Court of Appeal Jun 2, 1977 No. Civ. 50336Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that in the absence of a substantial and credible showing of invidious discrimination, the disclosure of official investigative material is against the public interest and protected by governmental privilege. Consequently, the trial court's order compelling the Attorney General to answer interrogatories regarding selective enforcement was vacated.

Issues

Whether the superior court erred in ordering the disclosure of official investigative material over claims of governmental privilege under Evidence Code section 1040.
Whether the defendant made a sufficient showing of invidious discrimination to overcome the privilege protecting prosecutorial investigative files.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion that, absent some substantial and credible showing of invidious discrimination, disclosure of official investigative material is against the public interest.”

“there is no substantial evidence to support the finding of the superior court that disclosure of the matters sought to be discovered is not against the public interest.”

[343]

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Proceeding in mandate to review an order of the superior court requiring petitioner to answer six interrogatories without further-objection.

Facts

On May 5, 1976, the office of the Attorney General of the State of California filed a complaint against Lyons Buick-Opel-GMC, and some of its officers and directors, (Lyons) alleging violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; Civil Code sections 3369, 1770, subdivisions (e), (f), (i), and (m); Business and Professions Code section 12024.6; Vehicle Code sections 11713, subdivisions (b), (c), (d), 11713.1, subdivision (a), 5200, 5901, subdivision (b), 5202; California Administrative Code, title 13, sections 405.01, 405.06(f), title 16, sections 3353 and 3353(a); Business and Professions Code sections 9884.9; Penal Code section 484, and various provisions of the Federal Truth in Lending Act.

On October 20, 1976, Lyons filed a second set of interrogatories, to which petitioner objected in part. Lyons then filed a motion to compel further answers, which was heard January 4, 1977, and resulted in an order that petitioner must answer interrogatories

4, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 without further objection.

The interrogatories go to a prospective defense, which has not yet been pleaded, that Lyons is being subjected to selective enforcement of the law which, if true, and if the deliberate product of invidious discrimination based upon some improper criterion, would deprive them of equal protection of the law.

(Murgia

Municipal Court,

15 Cal.3d 286 [124 Cal.Rptr. 204, 540 P.2d 44]).

The objections raised were those of relevancy and governmental privilege as established by Evidence Code section 1040. In its memorandum of points, and authorities in opposition to the motion to compel further answers, petitioner for the first time raises the privilege contained in Government Code section 6254, subdivision (f). Lyons argues that Government Code section 6260 expressly exempts litigation from the strictures of section 6254, subdivision (f).

People v. SUPERIOR COURT (LYONS BUICK-OPEL-GMC.)

AI Brief

ROTH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO NO. 4

INTERROGATORY NO. 8

INTERROGATORY NO. 9

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO NO. 9

INTERROGATORY NO. 12

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO NO. 12

INTERROGATORY NO. 14.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO NO. 14

INTERROGATORY NO. 15

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO NO. 15

AI Brief