Pullin

Pullin v. Superior Court

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 520·2000 Daily Journal DAR 7085·81 Cal. App. 4th 1161·97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 447·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5363
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 2000B139532California1,593 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

We publish this opinion to confirm that, as the plaintiff in this case claims, there is nothing in the Civil Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016 et seq.) to prevent a party from conducting a unilateral investigation without resort to any statutory discovery device, provided only that the investigation is lawful. We issue a peremptory writ as prayed.

Facts

On a rainy day in February 1998, Lincoln Pullin slipped and fell at a Vons Market in Inglewood. In January 1999, Pullin sued The Vons Companies, Inc. for negligence. Vons answered, and the case was ultimately set for trial. Pullin retained a forensic safety engineer, Ralph Engdahl, and designated Engdahl as his expert on the issue of liability. Vons noticed Engdahl’s deposition. Pullin, in turn, telephoned Vons’s lawyer to ask for permission for Engdahl to “conduct tests” on the floor at the Inglewood market. Vons’s lawyer responded with a dissertation on Pullin’s “failure to timely serve a proper request for an inspection” and refused to allow Engdahl to inspect the premises or conduct any tests.

On February 17, while the Inglewood store was open for business, Engdahl went to the store, examined the spot where…

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.