Deukmejian v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 03 June 1983
• Citation: 191 Cal.Rptr. 905,143 Cal.App.3d 632
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: George DEUKMEJIAN, Governor of the State of California, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARIN COUNTY, Respondent; Don C. WILSON, Richard Parento and Ursula Gealey, Real Parties in Interest. A022431.

Page 905

191 Cal.Rptr. 905

143 Cal.App.3d 632

George DEUKMEJIAN, Governor of the State of California, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARIN COUNTY, Respondent Don C. WILSON, Richard Parento and Ursula Gealey, Real Parties in Interest.

A022431.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

June 3, 1983.

John K. Van De Kamp, Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal., Kenneth C. Young, Paul Gifford, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for petitioner.

Michael Satris, Prison Law Office, San Quentin, for real parties in interest.

Luther Kent Orton, Denis R. Salmon, David D. Cooke, Kathleen P. Foster, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

This petition, filed by the Governor of the State of California, challenges a trial court ruling requiring him to testify in a lawsuit concerning conditions at San Quentin State Prison. The Governor is a defendant in that action and has been given notice to appear to testify at a trial now in progress. ¹ His motion to quash the notice to appear was denied by the trial court. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to quash the notice to appear because plaintiffs in the lawsuit (real parties in interest here) made an insufficient showing of need for the Governor's testimony. We grant a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to quash the notice to appear.

We start our review by noting that real parties in interest and the trial court accepted the principle stated in State Board of Pharmacy v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 641, 644-645, 144 Cal.Rptr. 320, that a busy public official should not be required to give evidence in his or her official capacity in the absence of "compelling reasons." Real parties in interest presented what they considered "compelling reasons," and the trial court concluded that the Governor's testimony was "essential." The dispute here is over the adequacy of the reasons given.

We are at a slight disadvantage in reviewing the trial court order because the parties have not fully described the underlying lawsuit. However, petitioner has supplied us with real parties' opposition to the motion for a protective order or to quash the notice to appear and with a transcript of the trial court hearing on the motion. Scrutiny of those documents reveals the court's mistaken view of the role of the Governor in this lawsuit.

The lawsuit apparently seeks in some way to alleviate overcrowding and other harmful conditions at San Quentin State Prison. The defendants are Governor Deukmejian and several corrections officials. According to real parties, the evidence already presented at trial has shown that the prison policies endorsed by the Governor's administration have had a direct effect upon San Quentin conditions and that the Governor's failure to support "early release" legislation to alleviate overcrowding contributed to the measure's failure to obtain committee approval in the Legislature.

In their opposition to the Governor's motion below, real parties filed a declaration stating that they had reason to believe that Governor Deukmejian had personal knowledge "of what he has (without judicial coercion) done about the conditions of confinement at San Quentin and the problems in the California Department of Corrections and of what he intends to do about them. Plaintiffs base this belief on the following: (1) Mr. Deukmejian's term as a state legislator; (2) his years of service at the State Attorney General's office; (3) his public statement that he is 'very pleased our prisons are full' (see, San Francisco Chronicle article ...); and (4) information supplied to counsel for plaintiffs that he opposed passage of early release legislation designed to alleviate prision [sic ] overcrowding." Their argument to the trial court focused upon the Governor's knowledge of what he had done about conditions and what he intended to do. They described these as the "central issues" in the case and asserted that no lesser official could provide that crucial information.

In explaining her ruling, the trial judge stated that "the Governor's testimony is essential [because] he is in a unique position to effect [sic ] and ... to remedy or to assist in remedying [any unconstitutional] situation ... and because the Governor did hold ... a position ... as Attorney General, it is my belief he is in a unique position to know the condition of the State's prisons...