Deukmejian

Deukmejian v. Superior Court

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 3d 632·191 Cal. Rptr. 905·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1795
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 1983AO22431California1,160 words

Opinion

Opinion

White, J.

This petition, filed by the Governor of the State of California, challenges a trial court ruling requiring him to testify in a lawsuit concerning conditions at San Quentin State Prison. The Governor is a defendant in that action and has been given notice to appear to testify at a trial now in progress. His motion to quash the notice to appear was denied by the trial court. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to quash the notice to appear because plaintiffs in the lawsuit (real parties in interest here) made an insufficient showing of need for the Governor’s testimony. We grant a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to quash the notice to appear.

We start our review by noting that real parties in interest and the trial court accepted the principle stated in State Board of Pharmacy v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 641, 644-645 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 320 ], that a busy public official should not be required to give evidence in his or her official capacity in the absence of “compelling reasons.” Real parties in interest presented what they considered “compelling reasons,” and the trial court concluded that the Governor’s testimony was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.