Everett v. Gordon
Decision Date | 22 October 1968 |
Citation | 266 Cal.App.2d 667,72 Cal.Rptr. 379 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | George Thomas EVERETT and Louis E. Everett, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Milton G. GORDON, Commissioner, and the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Investment of the State of California, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 24470. |
Matthew M. Fishgold, San Francisco, for appellants.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., of the State of California, L. Stephen Porter, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondents.
Appellants are licensed real estate brokers, against whom an accusation executed by a deputy real estate commissioner of the State of California was filed on September 2, 1966, before the Division of Real Estate of the Department of Investment of the State of California ('respondent agency').
The misconduct alleged arose out of the sale of certain real property owned by Mrs. Laura M. Burke, whose daughter, Mrs. Laura E. Tollefson, participated in the sale negotiations.
On September 12, 1966 appellants' attorney filed before the respondent agency a petition seeking (1) the issuance of subpoenas to take the depositions of Mrs. Burke and Mrs. Tollefson and (2) an order permitting the propounding of interrogatories (not specified) to the Real Estate Commissioner, respondent Gordon. Following a hearing thereon before a hearing officer of the Office of Administrative Procedure (Gov.Code § 11502), the petition was denied.
Appellants then filed a petition in the superior court for a writ of mandate to compel the granting of the relief outlined above. Respondents' general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action for such relief. This appeal from the ensuing judgment followed.
Appellants' contention is that, even though there is no statute 1 which authorizes prehearing discovery in an administrative disciplinary proceeding, the statutory procedures relating thereto should be Augmented by the courts 'to promote fair play and the interest of justice.'
Appellants rely principally upon Shively v. Stewart (1966) 65 Cal.2d 475, 55 Cal.Rptr. 217, 421 P.2d 65, wherein the Supreme Court said: 'The Administrative Procedure Act (Gov.Code, §§ 11501--11524), * * * contains no express provisions authorizing prehearing discovery in administrative proceedings. (Citations.) Although section 11510 of the Government Code provides that 'Before the hearing has commenced the agency or the assigned hearing officer shall issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum at the request of any party * * *' (subd. a), section 11511 indicates that the Legislature expressly contemplated the use of the subpoena power to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence at hearings. Thus, in authorizing the taking of depositions when the witness will be unable to or cannot be compelled to attend, section 11511 provides for depositions, not for the purpose of discovery, but to secure evidence for use at the hearing.
(Pp. 478--479, 55 Cal.Rptr. p. 219, 421 P.2d p. 67.)
The facts in Shively are: two licensed physicians, petitioners in the mandamus proceeding, were accused by the State Board of Medical Examiners of performing illegal abortions upon two named women. A month before the scheduled hearing date, they requested the hearing officer to issue subpoenas duces tecum to obtain (1) statements from the women named and their husbands; (2) copies of the petitioners' bills, letters and documents with respect to the treatment given; and (3) all reports and documents gathered by investigators and employees of the board. The hearing officer denied the request and the superior court denied the doctors' petition for a writ of mandate.
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' requests as to items (1) and (2) should have been granted but that their request as to item (3) required an additional showing.
Thus, the specific holding in Shively is that the subpoena duces tecum authorized by section 11510 of the Government Code may be used for discovery purposes and is not restricted to the obtaining of evidence to be used only At the hearing. (This is the first appellate decision allowing such prehearing discovery.) 2
The principle upon which Shively is based is that the accused in an administrative disciplinary proceeding should have the same rights of discovery as the accused in a criminal proceeding. (65 Cal.2d, at 479--480, 55 Cal.Rptr., at 220, 421 P.2d, at 68; emphasis added.) We shall thus direct our inquiry to the deposition and discovery rights of a defendant in a criminal action.
Our statutes permit the taking of depositions in criminal actions, either by oral or written interrogatories, in the following situations, none of which are present here: nonresident witness (Pen.Code § 1349); witness about to leave the state or who is sick or infirm (Pen.Code § 1336); and conditional examination of witness (Pen.Code § 1335).
A defendant in a criminal action does not, however, have a right to take the deposition of a potential prosecution witness for discovery purposes. (People v. Mersino, 237 Cal.App.2d 265, 269, 46 Cal.Rptr. 821; Clark v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.App.2d 739, 742, 12 Cal.Rptr. 191; Witkin, Cal.Evidence, § 1056, p. 965.)
In Clark v. Superior Court, supra, the court stated: 'It is significant that the Legislature, over the years, has seen fit to provide for the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases only in the limited situations set forth in the before-mentioned code sections. (Pen.Code §§ 1335, 1336, 1349.) In fact, that Legislature has practically provided that other depositions may not be taken, for section 1341, dealing with conditional examination of witnesses as provided in section 1335, provides, 'If, at the time and place so designated, it is shown to the satisfaction of the magistrate that The witness is not about to leave the state, or is not sick or infirm, or that the application was made to avoid the examination of the witness on the trial, the examination cannot take place.' (Emphasis added.)
(190 Cal.App.2d at 741--742, 12 Cal.Rptr. at 192--193.)
There are a number of criminal discovery rules established by court decisions. (Yannacone v. Municipal Court, 222 Cal.App.2d 72, 74, 34 Cal.Rptr. 838, 839; People v. Lindsay, 227 Cal.App.2d 482, 510, 38 Cal.Rptr. 755.)
However, with respect to appellants' request to propound interrogatories to respondent Gordon, as Commissioner, the following language in People v. Lindsay, supra, is appropriate: 'a defendant has to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation.' (P. 511, 38 Cal.Rptr. p. 773.)
The only showing made by appellants in their petition to respondent Gordon is the allegation that they 'require an opportunity to present interrogatories to the Real Estate Commissioner to determine what evidence will be introduced at the hearing * * *.' We think this is clearly insufficient. (Shively v. Stewart, supra, 65 Cal.2d 475, 482, 55 Cal.Rptr. 217, 421 P.2d 65.)
No interrogatories were proposed and we thus find ourselves in the same position as the court in Lindsay, supra, wherein the opinion states: (P. 510, 38 Cal.Rptr. p. 773.)
Shively v. Stewart, supra, recognizes that, upon a proper showing being made, the accused in an administrative disciplinary proceeding, may depose an executive employee of a public agency for a Limited purpose. In this respect, the court held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Bowen
...cases, the right to a deposition is governed by the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions. (See Everett v. Gordon (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 667, 671, 72 Cal.Rptr. 379; and Clark v. Superior Court (1961)190 Cal.App.2d 739, 742, 12 Cal.Rptr. 191.) Defendant contends that the title 'Ri......
-
Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners
...(1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 433, 440, 88 Cal.Rptr. 815; Romero v. Hern (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 787, 790, 81 Cal.Rptr. 281; Everett v. Gordon (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 667, 72 Cal.Rptr. 379.) Appellant's contention that he was prejudiced by the hearing officer's curtailment of his Voir dire examination o......
-
Pacific Lighting Leasing Co. v. Superior Court
...not extend to the production of documents by private party witnesses is not supported by any authorities it cites. Everett v. Gordon, 266 Cal.App.2d 667, 671, 72 Cal.Rptr. 379; People v. Oakley, 251 Cal.App.2d 520, 524, 59 Cal.Rptr. 478; Clark v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.App.2d 739, 740, 12 ......
-
People v. Municipal Court (Runyan)
...and with its underlying rationale. (See People v. Bowen (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 267, 277-280, 99 Cal.Rptr. 498; Everett v. Gordon, (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 667, 671, 72 Cal.Rptr. 379; People v. Oakley (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 520, 524, 59 Cal.Rptr. 478; People v. Mersino (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 265, 2......