Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County

Supreme Court of California

August 3, 1961

Sac. No. 7274


 [*368]  [**270]  [***94]    In this proceeding an alternative writ of prohibition was granted for the purpose of reviewing an order of discovery made by respondent court in a pending action in which petitioner is the defendant and Earline Z. Clay and Leslie Randolph Clay (the real parties in interest) are the plaintiffs. The order was made pursuant to plaintiffs' motion for an order requiring defendant to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of certain described [****2]  documents. The motion was predicated upon section 2031 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is a portion of the discovery act enacted in 1957 (Stats. 1957, chap. 1904). There are also pending five other cases involving various facets of the discovery act (Carlson v. Superior Court, L. A. No. 26111, post, p. 431 [15 Cal.Rptr. 132, 364 P.2d 308]; West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, L. A. No. 26171, post, p. 407 [15 Cal.Rptr. 119, 364 P.2d 295]; Steele v. Superior Court, L. A. No. 26172, post, p. 402 [15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292]; Filipoff v. Superior Court, L. A. No. 26265, post, p. 443 [15 Cal.Rptr. 139, 364 P.2d 315]; Cembrook v. Superior Court, S. F. No. 20707, post, p. 423 [15 Cal.Rptr. 127, 364 P.2d 303]). Although each of the six cases presents its own particular issues, there are certain general contentions that are common to all. For convenience, we will discuss those general considerations in this opinion, thus preventing unnecessary repetition.

The general problems running through all of the cases are six in number. They can be listed as follows:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

56 Cal. 2d 355 *; 364 P.2d 266 **; 15 Cal. Rptr. 90 ***; 1961 Cal. LEXIS 302 ****

THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, Respondent; EARLINE Z. CLAY et al., Real Parties in Interest

Subsequent History:  [****1]  Petitioner's Application for a Rehearing was Denied August 30, 1961. Schauer, J., and McComb, J., were of the Opinion that the Application Should be Granted.

Prior History: PROCEEDING in prohibition to prevent enforcement of an order of the Superior Court of Merced County granting inspection and copying or photographing of certain documents.

Disposition: Writ denied.


discovery, trial court, inspection, disclosure, deposition, parties, subdivision, interrogatories, privileged, cases, good cause, witnesses, matters, documents, inadmissible, discovery procedure, independent witness, fishing expedition, preparation, provisions, sections, exercise of discretion, discovery statute, limitations, purpose of discovery, attorney-client, photograph, provision of a section, judicial decision, subject matter

Civil Procedure, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, Inspection & Production Requests, Privileged Communications, General Overview, Criminal Law & Procedure, Defenses, Evidence, Privileges, Discovery & Disclosure, Interrogatories, Depositions, Oral Depositions, Protective Orders, Perpetuation of Testimony, Written Depositions, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Parties, Intervention, Mental & Physical Examinations, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Undue Burdens in Discovery, Relevance of Discoverable Information, Relevance, Relevant Evidence, Trials, Witnesses, Presentation, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection, Attorneys, Attorney-Client Privilege, Courts, Court Personnel, Scope, Work Product Doctrine