Huenergardt

Huenergardt v. Huenergardt

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1802·218 Cal. App. 2d 455·32 Cal. Rptr. 714
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1963Civ. 26850California1,633 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wood, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order (1) denying her motion for an order compelling defendant to answer certain questions which were asked during the taking of his deposition, and (2) requiring her attorney to pay $100 to defendant as attorney’s fees incurred in opposing the motion.

In 1949 plaintiff (wife) was awarded custody of the minor daughter of the parties in a final judgment of divorce. In June 1961 defendant (husband) obtained an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why custody of the daughter should not be awarded to him. On December 15, 1961, while plaintiff was taking the deposition of defendant, the attorney for defendant objected to certain questions upon the ground that they called for confidential communications between attorney and client, and he objected to other questions upon the ground that the information sought was immaterial and not within the issues. On advice of his attorney, defendant refused to answer the questions.

On May 16, 1962, plaintiff filed a notice of motion, under section 2034 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for an order requiring defendant to answer those questions. The notice of motion stated that the motion would be made upon the ground…

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.