*1 Nо. 2951. Fifth Dist. Nov. [Civ. 1976.] al., Petitioners,
ERNEST J. BAKMAN et THE COUNTY, SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO Respondent; FRESNO, CITY OF Real in Interest. Party *4 Counsel
Fadem, McIntire, & Michael M. Michael V. McIntire Berger Berger, Thuesen, Walters, Nibler Hendrick for & Petitioners. Lerrigo, No for appearance Respondent. Thomas, Jr., A. James Assistant Chief
Spencer City Attorney, McKelvey, Einbinder, Fenton, A. H. City Attorney, City Attorney, Deputy Hoge, Brock, Jones & H. Jr., Charles and H. R. Real Appel, Lloyd, Party Interest.
Opinion
GARGANO, J. an This to review order of the proceeding Court of Fresno to written County overruling petitioners’ objections a novel and fundamental Does the interrogatories presents question: *5 First Amendment of freedom of association shield who persons attend or which in the result group organizational meetings, ultimately of a institution lawsuit from against agency, public disclosing of all who have attended such and who identity persons may meetings, favorable evidence on behalf of the even might present public agency, the disclosure otherwise would be the California though required by Act? Discovery
Petitioners are 70 who own homes in the of the homeowners vicinity Terminal; Fresno Air terminal is an owned аnd operated by airport real in interest of sometimes to as (hereafter Fresno referred party City real party). 29, 1974,
On March civil instituted a action in the Superior Court of No. 163451) Fresno court action real County (superior against to recover the market value diminution party, seeking damages their of and for and emotional respeсtive properties; personal injuries noise, vibrations, disturbances caused aircraft fumes and soot from the of the Air Fresno Terminal. The action was resulting operation theories, inverse several condemnation predicated upon including nuisance. set of with real served
On March 21-page The numerous written litigation. aspects interrоgatories covering contained following ques- inquiries, interrogatories, among tions: or Have attended
“19. organizations, you any meetings any groups informal, of alleviat- concerned with the either formal or problem Air Fresno or noise ing reducing generated operations [the Terminal]? 19, above, affirmative,
“20. If the answer to Number Interrogatory state the following:
a. The name of each and every organization; group The dates b. attended you any meetings;
c. The purpose meetings;
d. The names and addresses of all who attended each meeting. and names and
“21. name and address addresses of Identify by to or officers each and organization group you belong every alleviation or reduction of are a member of which is concerned with Air noise Fresno generated by Terminal]. [the have seen addresses of doctor “55. What are the names and every you *6 limited to ten but not in the including chiropractors, years, past of or other healer. osteopaths, any type of Have ever filed a claim or received
“56. compensation yоu or to to nature from your damages anyone injuries your person than the claim? property, present affirmative, in the If the answer to the
“57. Interrogatory previous from whom claimed his state the name of the damages, you person claim, claim, address, and the the date of the the nature or other of claim amount received settlеment you your thereof.” disposition
312 19,
Petitioners answered and 20(a), 20(b) 20(c); they interrogatories refused to answer and 21 20(d) on that interrogatories ground violated the First of Amendment to freedom association. inquiries right 55, Petitioners also answered but refused to answer interrogatory 57; 56 and 56 and 57 on objected interrogatories they questions overbroad, irrelevant, were harass they vague, grounds ambiguous, Thereafter, and the court an entered ing embarrassing. order and overruling petitioners’ objections, required petitioners answer the this for writ of mandate followed.1 interrogatories; petition consider, first,
We contention that the court’s order petitioners’ to, their answer, and them to objection overruling requiring, interrogato- 21 ries was in 20(d) contradiction of the First Amendment of United States Constitution.
It cannot be denied that the of the First Amendment protections to the United States on Constitution freedom of speech expression 169, extend to the v. (1972) association. James 408 U.S. (Healy 266, 279-280, 2338, 181 L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. Baird v. State Bar 2346]; [33 1, 639, 646-647, 702, 401 U.S. Arizona 6 L.Ed.2d 91 S.Ct. (1971) 706]; [27 293, 301, 304, Louisiana v. N.A.A.C.P. U.S. (1961) 366 296 L.Ed.2d 81 [6 1333, Constitution, short, 1335].) S.Ct. The federal associa prоtects race, creed, tional freedoms without or regard political religious truth, affiliation without to the or social regard popularity utility 415, the ideas and v. (N.A.A.C.P. beliefs. Button 371 U.S. 444-445 (1963) 405, 424-425, 328, However, L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. the First 344].) [9 Amendment is not absolute and must to more protection yield compell 36, state State interests. v. Bar 366 U.S. 49-51 ing (Konigsberg [6 105, 115-117, 997, L.Ed.2d 81 S.Ct. Barenblatt v. 1006-1007]; United 1128-1129, n 109, 1115, States 360 U.S. [3 1081, Thus, 1093].) when associational freеdoms come in conflict with the exercise of valid be reconciliation must governmental powers, effected between two interests careful competing through weighing if the state action has the clear effect of process; associational deterring 1“Prohibition rather than is the mandamus where the lower court proper rеmedy abuses its discretion in allegedly (Oceanside further permitting ordering discovery. Union School Dist. Court Cal.2d P.2d439]; 185 Cal.Rptr. *7 Lock, Court, 754, However, Twin Inc. v. 52 Superior 788].) Cal.2d 758 P.2d where [344 the are broad allegations to enough in encompass as is the case appropriate remedy, the instant (Proctor will be treated as a proceeding, petition for suсh relief. & petition Court, 157, Gamble Co. v. 124 Superior 199]; 162 P.2d Cal.App.2d Los Angeles [268 Court, 465, Transit Lines v. 119 Superior 1004].)” (Bunnell 468-469 P.2d Cal.App.2d [259 720, 721, (1967) v. Court 254 Superior fn. 1 458].) Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [62
313
show,
ties and
the state must
an
relationships,
convincingly,
overriding
interest for the disclosure
v. State Bar
(Baird
compelling
sought.
Arizona,
1,
639,
401
646-647,
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
702,
91 S.Ct.
supra,
[27
Gibson v. Florida
706];
539,
Comm.
372
(1963)
U.S.
546
Legislative
[9
929, 935,
889,
Bar,
L.Ed.2d
83 S.Ct.
v. State
892];
366
Konigsberg
supra,
36,
105, 116-117,
997,
U.S.
50-51 L.Ed.2d
81 S.Ct.
1007]; N.A.A.C.P. v.
[6
449,
1488, 1500,
1163,
Alabama
357 U.S.
463
(1958)
78 S.Ct.
[2
67,
v. Public Util. Com.
1172];
69 Cal.2d
74
(1968)
Huntlеy
Cal.Rptr.
[69
605,
We case, at the threshold that in this neither state recognize interest nor the state action is traceable to the fact that real is a party city. Real is the defendant in the lawsuit instituted in the court below and must be treated in the same manner as litigant would be treated under the same or similar circumstances. Nev ertheless, it is that if the refused to apparent questions petitioners answer the constitutional association, of freedom of impinge upon about state action. impingement Petitioners were brought by ordered to answer the court, and the interrogatories court superior is an arm of the branch of state judicial (See Tribune Review government. Pub. Co. v. Thomas 362, Pa. 120 (W.D. 1954) 369; сf. F.Supp. v. 1, Kraemer (1948) U.S. Shelley 1161, 1181, 334 14 L.Ed. [92 836,842,3 addition, A.L.R.2d 441 In the court’s ].) order was made under Act, California authority this act was Discovery adopted by the California The essential Legislature. in questions presented this therefore, are whether proceeding, associational ties and relation will be deterred to answer ships by requiring petitioners interrogatories whether, 21, so, 20(d) and if the record establishes an overriding, state interest in to compelling requiring petitioners respond refused to answer. they questions the California Act has
Preliminarily, Discovery salutary public it was between purpose; adopted by Legislature expedite litigation citizens; to insure the state courts dispensation justice by through elimination of false of baseless claims and to an on place litigants equal state, The has a state interest in the footing. obviously, compelling utilization of this law and in its enforcement state courts. by litigants theAs California Court Supreme succinctly explained Greyhound Court 56 Cal.2d Corp. Cal.Rptr.
P.2d the California 266], Act “. .. was intended to Discovery accomplish results: assistance to the following give greater parties *8 the truth and in and (2) to
ascertaining checking preventing perjury; false, an means of and effective fraudulent provide detecting exposing defenses; available, and sham claims and to make in a (3) simple, convenient and facts which otherwise not could be way, inexpensive with to educate (4) the advance proved except difficulty; great parties of defenses, trial as to the real value of their claims and thereby settlements; (5) to to (6) encouraging expedite litigation; safeguard to to (7) (8) and narrow the against surprise; prevent delay; simplify issues; and, to and facilitate both and trial. expedite "preparation [Fn. omitted.]”
We cоnsider contention that the lower court’s order petitioners’ contravenes the First Amendment of freedom of association with the and of the California inAct mind. objects purposes Discovery themselves, us first to it clear to that seems
Turning petitioners no have valid basis to in their own Petitioners are they object right. to recover substantial for tо attempting damages injuries person caused real Fresno Air property allegedly by party’s operation Furthermore, Terminal. real has demonstrated that the informa party tion it is to obtain is relevant to the matter of seeking subject petitioners’ lawsuit and lead to of admissible might discovery pertinent evidence in its favor. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Court (Pаcific Cal.3d 465 P.2d For it is 854].) Cal.Rptr. example, real that not failed with position party’s petitioners only comply claims statute as to some of the of causes action in their alleged but that their is barred of statute limitations. It complaint, by lawsuit is also real that the action in the court party’s position brought petitioners below for real into them more purpose pressuring giving party for their which real was money properties party attempting acquire. real seeks to officers Consequently, party interrogate organiza tions or which are concerned with the nuisance groups alleged problems caused of the Fresno all Air Terminal and who by operation attended the of such determine meetings groups organizations whether in discussions made admissions that petitioners engaged could be used real as substantive or evidence in impeaching connection, with its defenses. lawsuit, It that voluntarily patent bringing to the themselves subjected discovery procedures judicial process, fact, are an inherent In to hold that can part process. resort to the suit in the form of judicial process bringing damages *9 it committed real redress against alleged wrongs seeking against party a of detriment them, at time—without and the same any showing the utilization shield themselves from legitimate city’s kind—absolutely which the First Amendment the basis would distort right upon salutary of association is of freedom grоunded.
However, the determination that our does not end with inquiry have no valid basis to in their own The object right. petitioners discover, information real is and the information only party seeking refused to is the identities of who did not divulge, persons follows, in lawsuit. It that it is the coñstitu join petitioners’ necessarily, tional of these that are in this right persons really asserting сourt; otherwise, it which must be considered this proceeding be for the of others to be would possible rights safety jeopardized because one who has a agency, merely person, grievance against public filed a this would have a has lawsuit that against agency; possibility freedom. effect on a constitutional chilling precious, though quаlified, Alabama, 449, 458-460 N.A.A.C.P. v. 357 U.S. (See supra, 1488, 1497-1498, 1170].) whether real
The issue narrows to right pursue statutory party’s interest in the the state’s compelling discovery procedures legitimate effect enforcement of such deterring procedures outweighs to freedom of has the First Amendment disclosure sought upon is whose identities real association seeking party persons discover, said, this case so that it can be under fairly, facts to a more state constitutional must yield compelling qualified privilege this is in We have concluded that the answer to question purpose. affirmative.
This is not situation in which a or city governmental of the officers and members of a agency seeking identity group and the identities of all who attended its organization, persons meetings, to subserve some as was merely tangential governmental purpose case in the decisions relied N.A.A.C.P. v. (See upon by petitioners. e.g., Alabama, while 357 U.S. As we have indicated 449.) supra, repeatedly, real is a it is the identities of the city, seeking question own its as a in a lawsuit which was not its choosing, capacity litigant and in an effort to evidence to be used in that lawsuit. discover favorable addition, concerned
In held by organizations groups meetings caused the Fresno Air with the alleviation of the problems allegedly *10 in, for, the Terminal held and succeeded were generating apparently lawsuit which the do not was ultimately brought against city; petitioners even attended in an the were deny meetings by attorneys acting As a all of the who advisory capacity.2 consequence, participated in those are witnesses. meetings potential there is no evidence in this record to that the disclosure
Lastly, suggest of the identities the in result “economic sought ,by city might reprisal, coerсion, loss of threat of and other manifestations employment, physical which would deter members from public hostility” present associating Alabama, and dissuade others from v. 357 (N.A.A.C.P. joining. supra, 1499-1500, 449, 1488, 1163, U.S. 462-463 L.Ed.2d 78 S.Ct. see 1172]; [2 516, 480, 523-524 also Bates v. Little Rock 361 U.S. L.Ed.2d (1960) [4 Com., 485-486, 412, v. Public Util. 69 Cal.2d 417]; 80 S.Ct. Huntley supra, shows, 67, all record whose On the for the 72-73.) contrary, any person burdened, harassed, will not be or name is disclosed to real party in a than witness lawsuit is embarrassed more any any potential burdened, harassed, or embarrassed the taking deposition by called as a witness. being will have a the of the names the
While disclosure sought by city association, of freedom of minimal effect on clearly, deterring this minimal effect is under the facts of the instant case outweighed of the California Discoveiy substantially by objects purposes Act.3
We next consider remaining interrogatories petitioners that, refused to answer 56 with the as we 57) observation (questions view these do to reveal their not inquiries, they require petitioners health,” “lifetime of. . . and emotional as they suggest. histoiy physical whole, to elicit informatiоn to As are merely inquiries designed are determine whether of the litigants; “professional” directed, are toward information these interrogatories solely, pertaining 2We no possible application have occasion in the instant pass upon proceeding of the went at these meetings. as to what on lawyer-client privilege 3Petitioners have and there is in the record before us to suggest, not argued, nothing 20(d) 21 that the information real can be obtained sought by interrogatories 231, 479, (See more narrow means. Shelton v. Tucker 364 U.S. 488 L.Ed.2d [5 288, 237, 247, 252]; U.S. 81 S.Ct. see also NAACP v. Alabama 377 325, 1302, Com., 338-339, 1314]; v. Util. 69 Cal.2d Public Huntley supra, 67, 77.)
317 received filed or to claims by any compensation Louisell & Modern (See Wally, damages. injuries property personal 5.30, 16).) 403 Cal. ed. (2d 1972) § interrogatory Discovery p. (suggested its that the court abused it cannot be said When viewed in this light, and in relevant discretion in ordering peti- finding interrogatories Court, to answer them. tioners supra, (Greyhound Corp. Superior Tel. & Tel. Co. v. the court Cal.2d As 378-380.) explained Pacific Court, 173: “... the relevance of the Cal.3d subject supra, standard must be in accordance with matter reasonably applied; liberal doubts as to discoveiy procedures, policies underlying *11 relevance should be resolved in favor of discovery generally permitting 851, Court 239 (cf. Chapin Cal.App.2d [49 Given this liberal and flexible standard of rele- 199]). very Cal.Rptr. a that a court abused show its discretion in vancy, party attеmpting material relevant for of bears an finding discovery purposes extremely An burden. court cannot reverse a trial court’s of heavy appellate grant under a attack unless it concludes that the answers discovery ‘relevancy’ a line of cannot as a reasonable sought questioning possibility giyen lead to the of evidence or be in admissible discovery helpful preparation for trial.” (Fns. omitted.) and the
The order to show cause is for writ of discharged petition denied. prohibition J.,P.A.),
Brown concurred. (G. but I do FRANSON, J denial of the writ of I concur in the prohibition have failed that on the record before us so on ground to freedom of that their First Amendment show assembly rights speech, Thus, in it is or аssociation have been unnecessaiy any way. jeopardized Civil Act in the First Amendment and the California Discoveiy place of their relative merits on for the weighing juxtaposition purpose constitutional scale. have instant action
I hold that would by filing simply who, and addresses of consented to the names discovery concerned with with attended meetings organizations petitioners, noise the alleviation or reduction of generated operations I find in N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama Fresno Air Terminal. nothing which U.S. 449 contrary compels 1163] disclosure rationale. That case only compelled recognizes reli- engaged advocating particular membership organizations as on belief is or dissidеnt constitutionally impermissible infringing gious I no state interest. see absent some of association overriding us. in the case before such issue 2, 1976,
A for a December and the was denied petition rehearing was modified to read Petitioners’ as above. opinion application printed for a denied 1977. Court was hearing by January Supreme Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., that the were opinion application should be granted.