Abex Corp. v. Superior Court

Petitioners challenge an order denying a motion to require a plaintiff to submit to a biopsy of warts which real parties in interest herein claim were caused by exposure to asbestos.

Preliminarily we reply to real parties’ contention that petitioners should be left to their remedy by appeal. We recognize that the prerogative writ is not a favored method of review of discovery orders, and ordinarily this issue must be raised on direct appeal from a final judgment. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 465 P.2d 854 ].) In explaining an admonition to the appellate courts in *757 this regard, the Supreme Court noted the oft-quoted statement in Ryan v. Superior Court (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 813, 816-817 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 147 ]: “ ‘One of the prime purposes of the Discovery Act is to expedite the trial of the action. This purpose will be defeated if appellate courts entertain petitions for prerogative writs by which a review of the orders of trial courts in discovery proceedings are sought and which do not clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion where discovery is denied, or a violation of privilege or of the provisions of…