Court Opinion

ID: 9725058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:27:23.616914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:09.512787
License: Public Domain

FRANSON, J.
I respectfully dissent. In my view this case comes within the purview of Shepherd v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107 [130 Cal.Rptr. 257, 550 P.2d 161], wherein the Supreme Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (a), authorized the photographing of police officers in the clothes they wore on the night of the shooting to facilitate the interviewing of witnesses. I find unconvincing the majority’s attempt to distinguish the present discovery order from the one in Shepherd on the basis that the present order requires a reenactment of the activity leading to plaintiff’s injuries.
It is well settled that the California discovery statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure unless statutory or strong public policy considerations clearly prohibit it. (Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 118.) As stated in Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 171 [84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854]: “Appellate courts must keep the liberal policies of the discovery statutes equally in mind when reviewing a decision granting discovery. In this context, absent a showing by the petitioner that a substantial interest will be impaired by the discovery, the liberal policies of the discovery rules will generally counsel against overturning the trial court’s decision granting discovery.” (Original italics.) I find no substantial interest of petitioner that would be impaired by permitting the discovery.
I would deny the writ.
The petition of the real parties in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 1, 1978.