Case Name: EVA RUTH FISHER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROBERT KENT DAVIS et al., Real Parties in Interest
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1959-12-30
Citations: 176 Cal. App. 2d 785
Docket Number: Civ. No. 24348
Parties: EVA RUTH FISHER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROBERT KENT DAVIS et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 176
Pages: 785–786

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 24348.
Second Dist., Div. One.
Dec. 30, 1959.]
EVA RUTH FISHER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROBERT KENT DAVIS et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Frank J. Kanne, Jr., and Arnold M. Cannan for Petitioner.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, William E. Lamoreaux, Assistant County Counsel, and Edward A. Nugent, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
Gilbert, Thompson & Kelly and Jean Wunderlich for Real Parties in Interest.

Opinion:
SHEA, J. pro tem.
Petitioner is the plaintiff in a personal injury action; the real parties in interest are defendants in said action. Petitioner addressed certain interrogatories to the defendants for purposes of discovery. Included in said interrogatories was a question concerning the existence, identity and limits of liability of any policy of public liability insurance owned by the defendants. Defendants refused to answer that portion of the question having to
do with policy limits on the ground that they are not discoverable and are irrelevant.
Thereafter, a hearing was had in superior court on the defendants' objection to the interrogatories. The court sustained the defendants' objection. Plaintiff then sought this writ to compel the court to change its ruling on the ground that said ruling is contrary to the law. She relies upon the case of Laddon v. Superior Court, 167 Cal.App.2d 391 [334 P.2d 638].
Pursuant to said petition this court issued an alternative writ of mandate returnable on December 22, 1959. On this date, at the time the matter was called for oral argument, counsel for the defendants served and filed a supplemental return to the petition. In said supplemental return the defendants set forth the name of the company and the limits of liability of their insurance policy. As a result of this action by the defendants the plaintiff has the information which she sought. The question has become moot.
The alternative writ of mandate is discharged and the petition is dismissed.
Wood, P. J., and Fourt, J., concurred.
Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.