Opinion

Proceeding in mandate to require respondent .court to vacate its order sustaining certain objections to requests for admissions, and to enter a new and different order overruling said objections. We granted an alternative writ.

Facts:

Discussion:

Other than the assertion that the requests are not propounded in good faith, there is no showing whatsoever of bad faith, a term presumably lifted from Code of Civil Procedure section 2019, subdivision (d). Neither is there any showing of harassment in the 12 short requests which occupy only a single page. The requests are clearly relevant to the subject matter of the action as framed by the pleadings, and they are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only privilege which might be applicable is the privilege against self-mcrimination. It is, however, well established that deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal. (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 [ 96 L.Ed. 586 , 72 S.Ct. 512 ]; Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 668 , 80 S.Ct. 683 ].) The privilege is therefore not applicable.

In Cembrook v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 423 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 127 , 364 P.2d 303 ], the Supreme Court disapproved a blanket order barring disclosure in toto. The order of the superior court in the present case was precisely such a blanket order and was an abuse of discretion.

Davalos is entitled to sue, to be a party, and to give evidence, and it is precisely that evidence which petitioner seeks.

Disposition:

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue requiring respondent court to vacate its order of January 14, 1977, sustaining real party’s objections to petitioner’s requests for admissions, and to enter a new and different order overruling said objections and ordering answers within 20 days without objection.

Roth, P. J., and Compton, J., concurred.

appendix A

1. That you are not a citizen of the United States of America.

2. That are an alien in the United States.

3. That you cannot legally be employed in the United States.

4. That do not claim that can be within the United States.

5. That your claim of future lost earnings in the amount of $266,770.00 as set forth in your answer to this Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 223 (First Set) is based upon a projection that you are legally employable within the United States.

6. That you were not born in the United States.

7. That you never have applied for citizenship in the United States.

8. That have never been to the United States.

9. That you have never applied for permanent resident alien status in the United States.

10. That you have never been granted permanent resident alien status in the United States.

11. That you do not have a Green Card issued to you by the United States Department of Immigration.

12. That the Social Security number which you set forth in your answer to Interrogatory No. 1 (First Set) as propounded by this Defendant, to wit. 551-02-2932, was never issued to you by any department of the government of the United States of America.

APPENDIX B

Plaintiff. JUAN DAVALOS, objects to the requests for admission of fact served on plaintiff on December 13, 1976, as follows:

1. OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Request No. 1 reads as follows: “That you are not a citizen of the United States of America.”