FISHER v. Robert Kent Davis, Patricia Davis Roy and La Verne J. Roy, Real Parties in Interest.

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Eva Ruth FISHER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Robert Kent Davis, Patricia Davis Roy and La Verne J. Roy, Real Parties in Interest.

Civ. 24348.

Decided: December 30, 1959

Frank J. Kanne, Jr., and Arnold M. Cannan, Los Angeles, for petitioner. Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Wm. E. Lamoreaux, Asst. County Counsel, and Edward A. Nugent, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent. Gilbert, Thompson & Kelly and Jean Wunderlich, Los Angeles, for real parties in interest.

Petitioner is the plaintiff in a personal injury action; the real parties in interest are defendants in said action. Petitioner addressed certain interrogatories to the defendants for purposes of discovery. Included in said interrogatories was a question concerning the existence, identity and limits of liability of any policy of public liability insurance owned by the defendants. Defendants refused to answer that portion of the question having to do with policy limits on the ground that they are not discoverable and are irrelevant.

Thereafter a hearing was had in superior court on the defendants' objection to the interrogatories. The court sustained the defendants' objection. Plaintiff then sought this writ to compel the court to change its ruling on the ground that said ruling is contrary to the law. She relies upon the case of Laddon v. Superior Court, 167 Cal.App.2d 391, 334 P.2d 638.

Pursuant to said petition this court issued an alternative writ of mandate returnable on December 22, 1959. On this date, at the time the matter was called for oral argument, counsel for the defendants served and filed a supplemental return to the petition. In said supplemental return the defendants set forth the name of the company and the limits of liability of their insurance policy. As a result of this action by the defendants the plaintiff has the information which she sought. The question has become moot.

The alternative writ of mandate is discharged and the petition is dismissed.

SHEA, Justice pro tem.

PARKER WOOD, P. J., and FOURT, J., concur.