Sutter's Place Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
161 Cal. App. 4th 1370·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 541·75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 9
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 2008H031317California4,017 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

Petitioner Sutter’s Place Inc. operates a card room known as Bay 101 under a permit issued by real party in interest City of San Jose (City). City passed an ordinance that prohibits (1) operation of card rooms between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., and (2) backline betting. Sutter’s Place sued City to nullify the ordinance and for other relief. It underlay its legal theories with a theme that the reduced hours and gaming option would render its card room business uneconomical and an argument that City’s motive for adopting the ordinance was to put it out of business. Sutter’s Place sought extensive discovery from City. City identified numerous documents for which it resisted discovery on various grounds. The parties, a referee, and respondent superior court engaged in prolonged efforts to resolve the dispute. After an in camera review of certain documents, respondent issued a discovery order protecting specified documents from disclosure on the ground that discovery would violate the mental processes principle (precluding judicial inquiry into the motivation or mental processes of legislators in enacting legislation). Sutter’s Place seeks a writ of mandate or prohibition to…

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.