Bailey

Paul Sherod Bailey’s petition for a writ of mandate presents the issue of whether Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031 and 2034 authorize an order compelling a party litigant to reenact an accident so that the adverse party may make a motion picture of the reenactment.

*446 Petitioner Bailey filed a personal injury complaint against real parties, Sears, Roebuck & Company and Emerson Electric Co., alleging that they negligently designed and constructed a radial arm saw which Sears sold to petitioner, which negligence proximately caused the severing of four fingers on petitioner’s right hand while he was operating the saw. At an earlier juncture in this litigation, respondent, on real parties’ motion, ordered a videotaped reenactment of the circumstances of the accident to supplement petitioner’s oral deposition as to how the accident occurred. In Bailey v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 970 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 669 , 568 P.2d 394 ], the Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition directing respondent to quash its order, holding that, absent a stipulation of the parties, videotape may not be used to record and report the proceedings of a deposition.

After the Supreme Court…

I respectfully dissent. In my view this case comes within the purview of Shepherd v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 257 , 550 P.2d 161 ], wherein the Supreme Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (a), authorized the photographing of police officers in the clothes they wore on the night of the shooting to facilitate the interviewing of witnesses. I find unconvincing the majority’s attempt to distinguish the present discovery order from the one in Shepherd on the basis that the present order requires a reenactment of the activity leading to plaintiff’s injuries.

It is well settled that the California discovery statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure unless statutory or strong public policy considerations clearly prohibit it. (Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 118 .) As stated in Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 171 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 465 P.2d 854 ]: “Appellate courts must keep the liberal policies of the discovery statutes equally in mind when reviewing a decision granting discovery. In this context, absent a showing by the petitioner that a substantial interest…

Robert D. Patterson, Jr., for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

BROWN (G.A.), P.J.

Paul Sherod Bailey's petition for a writ of mandate presents the issue of whether Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031 and 2034 authorize an order compelling a party litigant to reenact an accident so that the adverse party may make a motion picture of the reenactment.

Petitioner Bailey filed a personal injury complaint against real parties, Sears, Roebuck & Company and Emerson Electric Co., alleging that they negligently designed and constructed a radial arm saw which Sears sold to petitioner, which negligence proximately caused the severing of four fingers on petitioner's right hand while he was operating the saw. At an earlier juncture in this litigation, respondent, on real parties' motion, ordered a videotaped reenactment of the circumstances of the accident to supplement petitioner's oral deposition as to how the accident occurred. In Bailey v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 970 [ 140 Cal. Rptr. 669 , 568 P.2d 394 ], the Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition directing respondent to quash its order, holding that, absent a stipulation of the parties, videotape may not be used to…