Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | PUGLIA |
| Citation | 99 Cal.App.3d 509,160 Cal.Rptr. 314 |
| Parties | TAHOE FOREST INN et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF EL DORADO COUNTY, Respondent, Rosa B. TURNEY, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 19162. |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1979 |
Page 314
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF EL DORADO COUNTY, Respondent,
Rosa B. TURNEY, Real Party in Interest.
[99 Cal.App.3d 510]
Page 315
Matheny & Poidmore and Anthony J. Poidmore, Sacramento, for petitioners.Gessford, Sevey & Alpar and Michael C. Gessford, Sacramento, for real party in interest.
PUGLIA, Presiding Justice.
Petitioners are defendant Tahoe Forest Inn and its attorneys (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) in an action for personal injury brought by real party in interest (plaintiff) in respondent superior court. Defendants seek a prerogative writ annulling the effect of the superior court's order imposing sanctions upon them [99 Cal.App.3d 511] [99 Cal.App.3d 510] for failing to produce their expert witness for a deposition noticed by plaintiff. We shall grant defendants relief.
On June 22, 1979, the trial of plaintiff's personal injury action was set for December 3, 1979. On Monday, October 15, 1979, defendants served on plaintiff and deposited with the court a list of their expert witnesses. (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 2037, 2037.1; all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.) One of defendants' listed experts was Richard Arden, who was identified as a resident of Sparks, Nevada.
On October 15th, plaintiff served defendants with notice that Arden's deposition would be taken in the office of plaintiff's attorney in Sacramento commencing at 10 a. m., October 30, 1979. There was apparently no further contact between counsel relative to Arden's scheduled deposition until late afternoon of October 29th; at that time, defendants' attorneys contacted the office of plaintiff's attorney and advised that Arden would not be produced for deposition on October 30th because, among other reasons, the deposition was improperly noticed for Sacramento. Arden did not appear for the scheduled deposition and on November 13, 1979, plaintiff moved respondent court to impose sanctions upon defendants for their "refusal to make discovery." After a hearing, the court granted the motion,
Page 316
ordering that Arden be barred from testifying in the action and that defendants' attorneys pay the reporter his fee accrued in connection with the aborted deposition.On November 27, 1979, defendants served and filed in this court their verified petition for extraordinary relief in which they pray,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plunkett v. Spaulding, No. C016864
...of expert witnesses, which would prevail over other inconsistent discovery statutes. (Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 509, 512-513, 160 Cal.Rptr. 314.) Former section 2037.3 required a party on request to provide both a list of expected expert witnesses and a brief n......
-
Palma v. U. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.
...169 Cal.Rptr. 42; Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 317, 163 Cal.Rptr. 39; Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 509, 160 Cal.Rptr. A court's authority to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance is limited, however, to those cases in which the opposi......
-
True v. Shank, No. E024465.
...that this interpretation of section 2034 is wrong because it is contrary to the holding in Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 509, 160 Cal.Rptr. 314. Plaintiffs' reliance on Tahoe Forest Inn, however, is misplaced. In Tahoe Forest Inn, the court held that "a party seeki......
-
Plunkett v. Spaulding, C016864
...of expert witnesses, which would prevail over other inconsistent discovery statutes. (Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 509, 512-513, 160 Cal.Rptr. 314.) Former section 2037.3 required a party on request to provide both a list of expected expert witnesses and a brief n......
-
Palma v. U. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.
...169 Cal.Rptr. 42; Blumenthal v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 317, 163 Cal.Rptr. 39; Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 509, 160 Cal.Rptr. A court's authority to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance is limited, however, to those cases in which the opposi......
-
True v. Shank, E024465.
...that this interpretation of section 2034 is wrong because it is contrary to the holding in Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 509, 160 Cal.Rptr. 314. Plaintiffs' reliance on Tahoe Forest Inn, however, is misplaced. In Tahoe Forest Inn, the court held that "a party seeki......