St. Vincent Medical Center v. Superior Court

Opinion

THE COURT.

*

Petitioner challenges an order of the respondent court enforcing a provision in a trial setting conference order (TSCO) shortening the time limits prescribed by section 2037, subdivision (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

On October 3, 1984, we announced our intention to issue an order for peremptory writ in the first instance, gave the real parties in interest leave to file and serve additional opposition to the petition, and stayed all proceedings in this matter pending further order of this court.

(Palma

v.

U. S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.

(1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 [203 Cal.Rptr. 626, 681 P.2d 893]; Code Civ. Proc., § 923.)

Preliminarily, we note the prerogative writ is not a favored method of review of discovery orders, and ordinarily the issue must be raised on direct appeal from a final judgment.

(Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.

v.

Superior Court

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169 [84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854].) The reason for this general policy 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.”

(Sav-On Drugs, Inc.

v.

Superior Court

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

We depart from the general rule in the case at bench, however, since, as will appear, it presents a question of first impression which affects a large number of litigants and attorneys.

We recite herein only those facts necessary for our holding. On July 5, 1984, a trial setting conference was held on real parties’ medical malprac

[1033]