City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court

In this action challenging the City of Santa Cruz’s (City’s) adoption of a general plan, the trial court ordered City’s planning director and commissioners to reveal in depositions “whether there was an agreement among the council and commission members to refuse to consider any zoning for the greenbelt properties other than agricultural, regardless of the facts or evidence presented.”

We stayed the depositions on City’s application for a writ of mandate/ prohibition, to permit further consideration of the issues raised in the petition. As will appear, we agree with City that discovery into the subjective motives or mental processes of legislators is forbidden, and that this proscription may not be circumvented by deposing others about the factors that may have led to the legislators’ votes. Accordingly, we have determined that the writ of prohibition should issue to prohibit the depositions of Celia Scott, Jeff Ringold, and Peter Katzlberger.

Facts

Real party in interest, the Bombay Corporation (Bombay), filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, challenging City’s approval of a general plan and the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared in…