Borse

In this era when calendar congestion afflicts the California court system, attorneys could avoid squabbles such as this by recognizing the difference between legitimate and illegitimate discovery and by a modicum of cooperative observance of the spirit of the discovery statutes. Had plaintiff’s attorneys utilized discovery as a tool rather than a bludgeon, they would have narrowed their excessive, oppressive and strategically motivated interrogatories. These interrogatories went far beyond plaintiff’s legitimate needs and constituted a massive invasion of defendant’s business affairs. Had defendant’s counsel not felt put upon, they could have recognized plaintiff’s legitimate need for a restricted area of discovery. As it was, plaintiff’s demand was far too broad and defendant’s outright rejection understandably narrow. Recourse to a reviewing court was a sequence of the trial court’s failure to recognize a middle ground.

The trial court’s complete denial of discovery fell squarely within the following passage from West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 407, 418 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 119 , 364 P.2d 295 ]: “From the facts presented here, it is clear that total…