Carnation Co. v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 17 February 1950 |
| Citation | 96 Cal.App.2d 138,214 P.2d 552 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | . Civ. 17517. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California |
James V. Brewer, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, John B. Anson, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Vince Monroe Townsend, Jr., Los Angeles, for real parties in interest.
An alternative writ of mandate was issued in this proceeding requiring the superior court to annul its order quashing a subpoena for the taking of the deposition of a witness or to show cause why it had not done so. It appears from the answer to the alternative writ that the order has not been annulled. The real parties in interest, being plaintiffs in an action pending in the superior court, assert the validity of the order quashing the subpoena. The question for decision is whether Carnation Company, the petitioner herein, had a right to take the deposition of one, Dr. R. F. Harwell, under the circumstances hereinafter related.
Donald Harwell and Ronald Harwell, minors, by their guardian ad litem, Mrs. Andrew L. Harwell, brought suit against Carnation Company for the recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained in drinking milk 'bottled, prepared, produced and distributed' by the defendant and which it was alleged contained 'a large quantity of varnish, paint, and/or other foreign substances which is totally detrimental for human consumption.' The defendant answered denying the material allegations of the complaint, and took the deposition of Mrs. Andrew L. Harwell, mother of the minors and their guardian ad litem. From the deposition it appeared that the minors are twins three years of age; that the children were taken ill; Dr. Harwell was called in, examined them, administered treatment, and continued to treat them for a considerable period of time. Included in the prayer for damages in the complaint was a demand for $500 for medical expenses of the plaintiffs. Defendant caused to be filed an affidavit for an order requiring Dr. Harwell to give his deposition and requiring him to produce X-rays of the patients and his records with respect to his findings, diagnosis and prognosis and of the calls made by him at the home of the patients and other calls at his office. A subpoena in due from was issued and proper notice was given plaintiffs' attorney. Plaintiffs then gave notice of a motion to quash the subpoena and all proceedings for the taking of Dr. Harwell's deposition specifying as grounds for the motion 'that the doctor was not a party to this action and upon the further ground that he will be available for testimony at the time of the trial of the cause herein.' An affidavit of Dr. Harwell was filed stating that the giving of his deposition would result in 'gross inconvenience to him' and that he would be 'damaged irreparably' if required to leave his work to give his deposition. The affidavit further stated that he would be present at the time of the trial and that he had already given to the defendant a report of his medical findings and a special laboratory report 'of the materials alleged to have damaged the plaintiffs.' A reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendant which set forth specifically particulars with respect to facts allegedly within the knowledge of Dr. Harwell which could not be established by any other witness. Upon a consideration of the foregoing the court granted the motion to quash the deposition proceeding.
P...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paley v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
...is sound mandamus is an appropriate remedy. Brown v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.2d 559, 561, 212 P.2d 878; Carnation Co. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.2d 138, 141, 214 P.2d 552; Ahern v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.2d 27, 30, 245 P.2d It appears that petitioner and his wife, Lillian Paley, were......
-
Melancon v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
...a deposition and compel a witness to testify.' Brown v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.2d 559, 212 P.2d 878, 879.' Carnation Co. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.2d 138, 141, 214 P.2d 552, 553. The case at bar presents the unique situation wherein the shareholder plaintiff was denied the right to take......
-
Ahern v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
...728. Ordinarily a litigant is entitled to take a deposition in the cases provided for, as a matter of right. Carnation Co. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.2d 138, 140, 214 P.2d 552; Patrick Farms, Inc., v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.App.2d 424-425, 56 P.2d A party to an action may well be, and us......
-
I. E. S. Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...Cal.2d 500, 505, 267 P.2d 1025, 268 P.2d 722; Ahern v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.2d 27, 31, 245 P.2d 568; Carnation Co. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.2d 138, 140, 214 P.2d 552, and he cannot block the interrogation by contending that it is a 'fishing expedition' or by urging the secrecy o......