Ryan v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 28 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 24957,24957
• Citation: 186 Cal.App.2d 813,9 Cal.Rptr. 147
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: William Desmond RYAN and The Social Blue Book of California, Inc., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Alice Catt Armstrong, Real Party in Interest.

Page 147

9 Cal.Rptr. 147

186 Cal.App.2d 813

William Desmond RYAN and The Social Blue Book of California, Inc., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent Alice Catt Armstrong, Real Party in Interest.

No. 24957.

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

Nov. 28, 1960.

Downey A. Grosenbaugh, Hollywood, for petitioner.

Phill Silver, Hollywood, for real party in interest.

NOURSE, Justice pro tem.

Petitioners seek a writ of mandate commanding the respondent court to vacate its order sustaining the objections of the plaintiff, the real party in interest herein, to certain written interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of section 2030, Code of Civil Procedure, and to order the plaintiff to answer said interrogatories.

The action, pending in the respondent court and filed on February 17, 1960, seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged unfair competition.

The first cause of action alleges in substance that, continuously from 1949 through 1958, plaintiff has published a series of biographical reference books under the names respectively of 'Who's Who in Los Angeles County' and 'Who's Who In California'; that she owns the trademarks and copyrights on said books; that said books are of interest to varied organizations and persons; that the style and design, and particularly the cover of white with a gold leaf-grained fabric embossed with gold lettering, were plaintiff's original creations and are unique.

Plaintiff then further alleges that, prior to 1959, defendants published biographical books in the county of Los Angeles which were identified by their blue covers and were sold under the trade name of 'Blue Books'; that, in 1959, defendants for the first time published books using the same type of cover as the cover on plaintiff's publications; that the said books published in 1959 by defendants are an imitation and simulation of plaintiff's books which are calculated and likely to mislead and deceive purchasers into believing that defendants' books are the books of plaintiff; that said imitation and simulation has actually deceived and misled many persons and caused them to buy defendants' books; that, by reason thereof, plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $25,000; that she also seeks an injunction, and an accounting of defendants' profits during the last two prior years, 1958 and 1959.

In the second cause of action, plaintiff, after incorporating most of the allegations of her first cause of action, alleges that she has obtained and assembled the biographical data published in her books by devoting great labor, intensive research and untiring efforts to the obtaining thereof continuously ever since the year 1949; that within four years last past (i. e. during the years 1956-1959), defendants have published a book entitled 'California Register' under the trade name 'Blue Books'; that defendants in their said books wrongfully copied 1,800 names belonging to plaintiff from plaintiff's books; that defendants represented to the public that the names included in defendants' books were the property of the defendants and had been obtained by them from original sources; and that such conduct has misled many purchasers to buy defendants' books rather than plaintiff's books.

By reason thereof, it is further alleged that plaintiff has been damaged in the additional sum of $25,000, that she is entitled to an injunction and an accounting of defendants' profits during the last two prior years, 1958 and 1959. Plaintiff also seeks the award of $25,000 for exemplary damages on each of her said two causes of action.

Defendants filed an answer to said complaint denying the material allegations thereof and setting up certain affirmative defenses, including laches on plaintiff's part.

While mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a trial court to order a party to answer interrogatories propounded pursuant to section 2030 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the writ should not be granted unless there is a clear showing that the trial court has abused its discretion in refusing such an order. 3 Witkin's California Procedure, 2531, and cases there cited.

One of the prime purposes of the Discovery Act is to expedite the trial of the action. This purpose will be defeated if appellate courts entertain petitions for prerogative writs by which a review of the orders of trial courts in discovery proceedings are sought and which do not clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court where discovery is denied, or a violation of privilege or of the provisions of section 19 of article I of the Constitution of this state where discovery is granted. This court will hereafter refuse to entertain petitions for prerogative writs in discovery matters which do not allege facts which would entitle the petitioner to the relief sought under the principles we have set forth.

In all discovery proceedings a broad discretion is vested in the trial court in granting or refusing to grant an order directed at discovery and whatever order the trial court may make may not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion by it. Dowell v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.2d 483, 486, 304 P.2d 1009.

Therefore, 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 equitaby 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.

With the foregoing principles in mind we undertake the examination of the 43 interrogatories which petitioner requests we command the superior court to order answered.

Interrogatories 14 to 17 inclusive, 15.1 through 15.22, 16.1 through 16.22, 17.1 through 17.22 and 18.1 through 18.22 all seek information relative to the publication of plaintiff's book for...