Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court In and For Orange County
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 51 Cal.Rptr. 511,242 Cal.App.2d 527 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1966 |
| Parties | SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CO., Inc., a corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent. Civ. 8421. . Division 1, California |
v.
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent.
Division 1, California.
Page 511
Page 512
[242 Cal.App.2d 528] Welsh, Cummins & White, San Diego, and W. F. Rylaarsdam, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Betts & Loomis and John K. Trotter, Jr., Los Angeles, for real party in interest.
COUGHLIN, Justice.
Petitioner, Scotsman Manufacturing Co. Inc., seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain enforcement of a discovery order obtained upon motion of Real Party in Interest, The Roberts Brass Manufacturing Company. The order was made in an action against petitioner, Real Party in Interest, and others, to recover damages on account of injuries which the complaint alleges resulted from the explosion of a butane lamp installed in a trailer by petitioner, and containing a valve manufactured by Real Party in Interest. The action was [242 Cal.App.2d 529] filed December 8, 1964. Service upon all defendants, except Real Party in Interest, was effected in January, 1965. In June of that year, petitioner's attorney employed Dr. D. A. Morelli to examine the butane lamp and report to him respecting such examination for the purpose of assisting him in the preparation of petitioner's case. In the same month Dr. Morelli examined the lamp and delivered to the attorney his report in
Page 513
the premises. On Sept. 3, 1965, Real Party in Interest was served with a cross-complaint filed in the action by one of the defendants; on October 1, 1965 was served with the original complaint; and on December 24, 1965 was served with a cross-complaint filed by petitioner. Thereafter, Real Party in Interest discovered that experts employed by three of the parties to the action, including petitioner, had examined the lamp and made reports respecting their examinations; received copies of two of these reports; was refused a copy of the report by petitioner's expert; and on March 2, 1966 obtained the subject order directing petitioner to produce this report. Thereupon petitioner brought the instant proceeding to restrain enforcement of this order upon the ground, among others, the report of Dr. Morelli is a work product; there was no showing that denial of discovery thereof would unfairly prejudice real party in interest in preparing its defense or would result in an injustice; and granting the application for discovery of this report was an abuse of discretion. We have concluded these contentions are well taken.The report in question followed employment of Dr. Morelli by petitioner's attorney to assist in the preparation of its case and constituted a work product subject to the discovery limitations prescribed by § 2016 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (San Diego Professional Ass'n v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 194, 204, 23 Cal.Rptr. 384, 373 P.2d 448, 97 A.L.R.2d 461; Suezaki v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 166, 177, 23 Cal.Rptr. 368, 373 P.2d 432, 95 A.L.R.2d 1073; Brown v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.2d 430, 437, 439--443, 32...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
...deposed by the other party. (Bolles v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.App.3d 962, 963, 93 Cal.Rptr. 719; Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530-532, 51 Cal.Rptr. 511; Swartzman v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 195, 204, 41 Cal.Rptr. 721; Louisell & Walley, Modern Cal. Discove......
-
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., E033616.
...Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at pages 217-218, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 575; Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 531, 51 Cal.Rptr. 511. 20. Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at page 649, 151 Cal.Rptr. 399; see also Dowden v. Superio......
-
Curtis v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., B292967
...of the cases addresses whether the identity of a nontestifying expert is privileged. (See Scotsman Mfg. Co v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, 51 Cal.Rptr. 511 [trial court order compelling disclosure of consultant report was an abuse of discretion where it was unsettled wheth......
-
Ceres v. Superior Court of Stanislaus Cnty., F065690
...as the attorney's own work product, is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. (Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 531, 51 Cal.Rptr. 511.) The attorney is the holder of this privilege. (Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d......
-
Privileges and public policy exclusions
...given to the attorney exclusively in an advisory capacity remains subject to the privilege. Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal. App. 2d 527, 531, 51 Cal. Rptr. 511. Information that assists the attorney in the preparation of pleadings, the manner of presentation of proof and......
-
Table of cases
...v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 990, 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 915, §22:10 Scotsman Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal. App. 2d 527, 51 Cal. Rptr. 511, §10:80 Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 763, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 479, §§5:10, 8:10, 10:200, 22:200 Scot......