Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Oct 1, 1962 No. Civ. 20775Published

Before: Agee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that oral statements taken from employees for the dominant purpose of defending against potential litigation are protected by the attorney-client privilege and are not discoverable. However, the court upheld the trial court's discretion to order the production of surveillance photographs of the plaintiff.

Issues

Are oral statements taken from employees for the purpose of defending against litigation privileged and protected from discovery?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in ordering the production of surveillance photographs of the plaintiff?

Disposition. partially affirmed and partially reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the undisputed facts, as stated hereinabove, the trial court was in error as a matter of law in ordering defendants to disclose the contents of the oral statements or to produce the summary thereof made by Sale.”

“This is a matter of discretion with the trial court, under the record as presented herein, and there is no showing of any abuse of that discretion.”

AGEE, J.

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent court above-named from giving effect to an

[74]

order made pursuant to a motion made under sections 2030 and 2031 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries, and arises out of an auto-train collision occurring on August 6, 1960. Plaintiff in the action is the real party in interest herein, and petitioners are defendants Santa Fe, which is a corporation, and Disney, the engineer of the train. The action was filed on August 2, 1961.

On March 20, 1962, plaintiff served upon defendants a set of interrogatories pursuant to section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On April 4, 1962, Santa Fe filed its answers and objections thereto, objecting only to interrogatories numbered 8g, lOg, 23, 24 and 25. On April 10, 1962, Disney filed his answers and objections, objecting only to interrogatories numbered lOg, 23, 24 and 25.

On April 18, 1962, plaintiff served and filed a motion to compel answers to these unanswered interrogatories. He also included therein a motion under section 2031 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an inspection of any data relating to the subject-matter of the interrogatories.

Pursuant to such motion, the respondent court ordered defendants to answer the interrogatories in question and to produce “those documents and writings which will produce the answers to the above-requested interrogatories. ’ ’

The answers made by defendants to other interrogatories disclosed that between August 9, 1960, and August 16, 1960, one K. E. Sale, 44 Fourth Street, San Francisco, California, Sutter 1-7600, extension 268, had interviewed Disney and three other named persons, all of whom were employees of Santa Fe, and had obtained oral statements from them regarding the accident and that Mirko A. Milieevich (one of the attorneys of record for defendants Santa Fe and Disney) was “aware of the contents of said statements.”

The record shows that Sale is a claims adjuster employed by Santa Fe and that he acted herein for Santa Fe as such employee; that Disney and two of the other witnesses were members of the train crew and the remaining witness was a yard clerk working near the scene of the accident. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all four employee-witnesses were given in the answers of defendants.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

AGEE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief