Court Opinion

ID: 9545713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:18:02.862745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:25.151783
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(dissenting).
I do not agree with the foregoing opinion. I think the district judge properly exercised his discretion in granting defendant’s motion for inspection. If some of the documents or articles are inadmissible in evidence, a point touched upon in the majority opinion, then no one will be hurt by their inspection.
Likewise, the fact that defendant may uncover something that will be helpful in his defense which he could not have foreseen, i.e., he might accidentally catch a fish, and thus the matter be given the earmarks of a fishing expedition, is in my opinion no valid objection.
If defendant already knows what an inspection would reveal, then there is no need of an inspection. The real purpose of an inspection of documents and articles is to enable defendant to meet whatever surprises might be in store for bim as a result of the documents or articles which he seeks to examine. I do not think this court should condemn defendant’s efforts as an attempt to embark upon a fishing expedition when there is nothing before the court to indicate an absence of good faith on his part to obtain evidence relating to his defense. I have also taken this same view in perpetuation of testimony proceedings in a civil case. See my dissenting opinion in State ex rel. Woodward v. District Court, 120 Mont. 585, 189 Pac. (2d) 998^
*554I think the order of the trial court was proper and that the relief here sought should be denied and the proceeding dismissed.