Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 12 June 1968
• Citation: 263 Cal.App.2d 12,69 Cal.Rptr. 348
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., a corporation; Plautus Productions, Inc., a corporation, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; Hilda ROLFE, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 32793.

Page 348

69 Cal.Rptr. 348

263 Cal.App.2d 12

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., a corporation; Plautus Productions, Inc., a corporation, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent Hilda ROLFE, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 32793.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

June 12, 1968.

Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Anthony Liebig and Michael E. Meyer, Los Angeles, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman and Norman H. Garey, Beverly Hills, for real party in interest.

McCOY, Associate Justice pro tem. ^*

This is a proceeding for a writ of prohibition restraining the Superior Court for Los Angeles County from enforcing an order requiring petitioners to answer four interrogatories. We have concluded that the writ should issue with respect to three of the interrogatories and should be denied as to the fourth.

There is pending in the respondent court an action brought by Hilda Rolfe against petitioners Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., and Plautus Productions, Inc., hereafter referred to as CBS and Plautus, respectively, and against certain individuals wherein she seeks to recover damages for plagiarism, breach of implied in fact contract, and breach of trust and confidence. Her complaint is based on her claim that one two-part episode in a series of television shows known as 'The Defenders' broadcast by CBS over its television stations copies and uses a script, and the ideas, characters, characterizations, plot, theme and story line contained therein, which she had previously submitted to petitioners. It is admitted that Plautus produced the television series which were later telecast by CBS over its stations. It is conceded by petitioners that plaintiff submitted her alleged literary property to petitioner CBS on at least three occasions before the episode was produced and broadcast. 'The Defenders' television series consisted of 132 one-hour filmed episodes broadcast weekly during four television seasons.

The return to the alternative writ includes a general demurrer and an answer to the petition. In our opinion the petition does set forth facts which warranted the issuance of an alternative writ, and also sets forth facts which, when considered with the record as a whole constitute adequate grounds for the issuance of a peremptory writ. The demurrer is accordingly overruled.

We note preliminarily that the interrogatories involved here were included in the first set served on petitioners September 19, 1967. After both petitioners filed their objections to the first set of interrogatories, ¹ plaintiff noticed a motion for an order compelling petitioners to answer the interrogatories. This was the proper procedure to test the validity of the objections. (Code Civ.Proc. § 2030, subd. (a); Coy v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 210, 220--221, 23 Cal.Rptr. 393, 373 P.2d 457, 9 A.L.R3d 678.) On November 14 the court granted the motion as to some of the interrogatories, including those involved here and ordered 'Further answers to be served and filed within 15 days from notice.' ² At the same time the court denied the motion as to certain other interrogatories 'without prejudice to serving proper limited interrogatories.' Plaintiff served notice of the order on November 14. The second set of interrogatories, served November 15 as permitted by this order, did not repeat the interrogatories involved here. Plautus served its answers to both sets of interrogatories on December 28, 1967, at which time it made specific objections to interrogatories 38, 39, 46, 47 and 49 contained in the first set. Apparently CBS obtained an extension of time within which to answer both sets. While CBS has not yet answered the interrogatories, it appears from the record here that both sides agreed that when CBS answered, it would also make the same objections to those five interrogatories. On receipt of Plautus' answer plaintiff noticed a motion for an order compelling both petitioners to answer the five interrogatories referred to. On January 22, 1968, the court denied the motion as to interrogatory 38, ³ and granted it as to interrogatories 39, 46, 47, and 49, and ordered petitioners to answer those interrogatories within 45 days. The petition before us was filed February 20.

Interrogatories 39, 46, 47, and 49, and the specific objections of Plautus read as follows:

Interrogatory 39: 'Please list by date, names of parties, and title and nature of agreement, each and every written agreement to which you are a party or ever have been a party in connection with the production, financing, and/or distribution of an episode or episodes of 'The Defenders' television series called 'The 700 Year Old Gang. " Answer: 'This interrogatory is objected to on the ground that it calls for a vast amount of information, some of which is confidential, which has no bearing on the subject matter of this litigation and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissable (sic) evidence.'

Interrogatory 46: 'Please state and identify by the name of the source, by date of receipt and by amount each item of income, revenue, and gross receipts which you have received in connection with the episode or episodes of 'The Defenders' television series entitled 'The 700 Year Old Gang', listing also by date, names of parties and title and nature of document, each written contract, agreement or other document which would evidence or furnish a basis for such information.' Answer: 'Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissable (sic) evidence, and calls for confidential information.'

Interrogatory 47: 'Please state and identify by name of the payee, by date of accrual or expenditure, and by amount each and every item of cost which you have expended or incurred in connection with the episode or episodes of 'The Defenders' television series entitled 'The 700 Year Old Gang', listing also by date, names of parties, and title and nature of document each written contract, agreement, or other document which would evidence or furnish a basis for such information.' Answer: 'Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissable (sic) evidence, and calls for confidential information.'

Interrogatory 49: 'Please state the amount of profit which you have realized to date in connection with the episode or episodes of 'The Defenders' television series entitled 'The 700 Year Old Gang'.' Answer: 'Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissable (sic) evidence, and calls for confidential information and is not susceptible of answer as profit and loss was not, and could not be, calculated with respect to individual episodes of the series.'

In order to dispose of the matter expeditiously, we shall treat the matter as it was treated in the respondent court, that is, as though CBS had also filed its objections to the five interrogatories, since plaintiff's motion was directed to both defendants, the court's order applies to both of them, and the same issues are involved.

Plaintiff's motion for an order requiring defendants to answer interrogatories 38, 39, 46, 47, and 49 was made under section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the hearing of such a motion the burden is on the party interrogated, in this case the defendants, 'of showing facts from which the trial court might find that the interrogatories were interposed for improper purposes.' (Coy v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 210, 220, 23 Cal.Rptr. 393, 398, 373 P.2d 457, 462, 9 A.L.R.3d 678.) In short, the burden is on defendants to show that their objections are valid.

We are aware that 'The statute does not require any showing of good cause for the serving and filing of interrogatories.' (Coy v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 220, 23 Cal.Rptr. at p. 398, 373 P.2d at p. 462.) However, in deciding a motion under section 2030 the trial court must, of necessity, consider not only the stated objections to the interrogatories, but also the interrogatories themselves, as well as the pleadings, ⁴ and the contentions of the interrogating party as to the purpose and validity of the interrogatories. If the interrogatories stray too far and seek information which cannot reasonably serve the acknowledged purposes of pretrial discovery, the motion should be denied. We are, of course, aware of the rule that the discovery statutes must be construed liberally so that they may accomplish their purpose. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 378, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) Nevertheless, 'if interrogatories are reasonably subject to objection as calling for the disclosure of matters so remote from the subject matter of the action as disclosed by the issues framed by the pleadings as to make their disclosure of little or no practical benefit to the party seeking the disclosure or if to answer them would place a burden and expense upon the parties to whom the interrogatories are propounded which should be equitably borne by the propounder or if the interrogatories are so framed as to require the disclosure of relevant as well as irrelevant matter, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion may refuse to order such interrogatories answered. An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless there is no room for the exercise of discretion by that court.' (Ryan v. Superior Court, 186 Cal.App.2d 813, 817, 9 Cal.Rptr. 147, 150.) In short, as Justice Murphy said for the court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451, 460, 'discovery, like all matters of procedure, has its ultimate and...