PEDUS SERVICES, INC. v. Superior Court

Defendant, Pedus Services, Inc., has filed a mandate petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d) challenging the denial of its section 170.6 peremptory challenge to a discovery referee on timeliness grounds. We conclude the section 170.6 peremptory challenge was timely and issue our writ of mandate directing the respondent court to disqualify the referee.

This is an invasion of privacy and unlawful wiretapping case. The pertinent factual allegations were described in detail in our prior decision involving this same litigation in Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 ]. Upon the filing of the complaint, pursuant to rule 7.3 of the Rules of Los Angeles Superior Court, the Honorable Sherman W. Smith Jr. was assigned the present lawsuit for all purposes. During the process leading up to trial, discovery disputes among the parties broke out. On November 30, 1998, the respondent court appointed a discovery referee pursuant to sections 638 and 639. On January 26, 1999, the discovery referee filed his report. At the same time, the respondent court considered objections to the report filed on behalf of a…