Bolles v. Superior Court

Decision Date11 March 1971
Citation93 Cal.Rptr. 719,15 Cal.App.3d 962
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesJohn S. BOLLES, a California corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; BARTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 29399.

Farella, Braun & Martel, by John S. Martel, San Francisco, for petitioner.

Miller, Groezinger, Pettit & Evers, by Harold C. Nachtrieb, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT:

Petitioner John S. Bolles seeks mandate to compel the deposition of Wilmont Nicholson, an expert witness for real party in interest, Barton Development Company. As Barton has stated its intention to call Nicholson as a witness, the work product privilege is inapplicable. (Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530--532, 51 Cal.Rptr. 511.) Although good cause is required to depose an expert witness (Dow Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.App.3d 1, 6, 82 Cal.Rptr. 288; Grand Lake Drive In, Inc. v. Superior Court (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 122, 129--131, 3 Cal.Rptr. 621), we conclude that petitioner satisfied the requirement, and is entitled to the discovery sought. It has been held that where good cause is required, the showing must be liberally construed; the moving party is entitled to discovery upon a showing that the information sought is necessary for the preparation of its case, and the request may be granted without abuse of the rights of the adversary. (Associated Brewers Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 586--587, 55 Cal.Rptr. 772, 422 P.2d 332; Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378, 388, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) There is no requirement as real party argues, that the moving party show that it does not have equal access to the facts upon which the expert's opinion is based.

Because of the urgency created by the impending trial, we are directing the issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance without the issuance of alternative writ. A peremptory writ of mandate will issue directing respondent to order witness Wilmont Nicholson to answer questions propounded by petitioner relating to Nicholson's testimony and factual basis therefor, prior to the time he is called as a witness. Petitioner will pay the witness reasonable fees as determined by the trial court. The petition is denied insofar as it requests that trial be postponed; the trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1981
    ...contemplates calling as witnesses and such experts may, upon good cause shown, be deposed by the other party. (Bolles v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.App.3d 962, 963, 93 Cal.Rptr. 719; Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530-532, 51 Cal.Rptr. 511; Swartzman v. Superior Court,......
  • Lewis v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1999
    ...writ in the first instance as authorized by section 1088 of the Code of Civil Procedure." (See also Bolles v. Superior Court (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 962, 963, 93 Cal.Rptr. 719 ["Because of the urgency created by the impending trial, we are directing the issuance of a peremptory writ in the fir......
  • Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 19, 1977
    ...704--705 (original emphasis); see also Tip Top Foods, Inc. v. Lyng, 28 Cal.App.3d 533, 553, 104 Cal.Rptr. 718; Bolles v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.App.3d 962, 963, 93 Cal.Rptr. 719.) Since Ford determined well in advance of trial that at least Mr. Brink, the coordinator of Ford's tests, would ......
  • Williamson v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 14, 1978
    ...discovery." (See also Mize v. Atchinson, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 436, 449, 120 Cal.Rptr. 787; Bolles v. Superior Court (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 962, 963, 93 Cal.Rptr. 719; Dow Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 1, 10, 82 Cal.Rptr. 288; Scotsman Manufacturing Co. v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT