Southern Pacific Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 30, 1969 No. Civ. 12419Published

Before: Friedman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that facts known to a party and relied upon to prove allegations of negligence are discoverable through interrogatories, even if those facts were gathered by the party's attorney or an investigator. Such information does not constitute protected attorney work product.

Issues

Whether interrogatories seeking the facts underlying allegations of negligence are discoverable.
Whether facts gathered by an attorney or investigator are protected from discovery by the work product privilege.

Disposition. Writ of mandate issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A party is entitled to interrogatories disclosing the facts, if any, known to his opponent and upon which the opponent presently relies to prove his case.”

“The facts sought, those presently relied upon by plaintiffs to prove their case, are discoverable no matter how they came into the attorney’s possession.”

“Surprise is the only objective of withholding these facts pending the trial. That objective is contrary to the spirit and letter of the discovery statutes.”

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, Acting P. J.

Petitioner Southern Pacific Company, the defendant in a wrongful death action in the respondent superior court, seeks a writ directing the court to compel the plaintiffs to answer four interrogatories. The plaintiffs have been served as real parties in interest and appeared at oral argument in response to our order to show cause.

The complaint alleges four kinds of conduct on the part of Southern Pacific, all characterized as negligent: (1) the operation of its train; (2) the maintenance of its right of way; (3) the design, maintenance and construction of its crossing warning signs; (4) its violation of a specified order of the Public Utilities Commission. The four interrogatories resisted by plaintiffs seek a statement “in detail [of] all facts forming the basis” of these allegations.

In the trial court plaintiffs’ attorney appeared and testified in support of plaintiffs’ refusal to answer. According to the petition, he testified that all the facts requested in these interrogatories “were gathered by either the plaintiffs [sz'c] attorneys personally, or by a private investigator hired by plaintiffs [sz'c] attorneys for the purpose of gathering information” relevant to the lawsuit. Since plaintiffs have filed no written response to the petition, we accept this description of the attorney’s testimony. Upon this testimony, the trial court held that the information was the attorney’s work product and conditionally privileged under subdivision (b) of section 2016, Code of Civil Procedure.

A party is entitled to interrogatories disclosing the facts, if any, known to his opponent and upon which the opponent presently relies to prove his case.

(Burke

Superior Court,

71 Cal.2d 276, 283-285 [78 Cal.Rptr. 481, 455 P.2d 409].) Specifically, he may be required to disclose the facts underlying his allegations of negligence.

(Singer

Superior Court,

54 Cal.2d 318, 323-325 [5 Cal.Rptr. 697, 353 P.2d 305].) A party may also be called upon to state whether he makes

[198]

Southern Pacific Co. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief