Court Opinion

ID: 9528383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:37.760371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:49.840813
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J., Dissenting.
I agree that a party litigant does not have an absolute right to take the deposition of a witness at the particular time and place which he specifies, and that the trial judge may exercise a reasonable control over such proceedings. But this discretion must be reasonably exercised, and the court may not arbitrarily postpone the taking of a deposition.
The order here challenged expressly recites that the taking of the defendant’s deposition was postponed because the case against her had then been dismissed and an appeal from *276the judgment based upon that order was pending. There was, therefore, as I read the record, no exercise of discretion but the denial of the right to take testimony until “the determination of said appeal”. The fact that this was said to be “for the convenience of the parties and in the interests of justice” does not change the situation because the defendant relied entirely upon the fact that the appeal was pending as the ground for her demand for a postponement. Under these circumstances the case falls squarely within the rule stated in San Francisco Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court, 155 Cal. 30 [99 Pac. 359, 17 Ann. Cas. 933], and the peremptory writ of mandate should issue.