Because the trial court, when it denied the motion for discovery, did so mainly on the proposition, which is contrary to our present decision, that the defendants' financial condition is relevant only to exemplary damages and not to the kind of penalty created by the statutes, the trial judge should have the opportunity to reconsider the motion and to decide what, if any, further discovery is proper under all the circumstances. Accordingly, as was done in Steele v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 402, 406 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292], and West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 407, 422 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 119, 364 P.2d 295], a writ of mandate will issue requiring respondent court to vacate its order denying the motion compelling answers to interrogatories and to make its order in reference thereto in accordance with the views expressed herein. Rattigan, J., and Christian, J., concurred.
However, what was done here is something different from the mere statement of the ground of the demurrer which would satisfy section 472d Here the trial court has explained, not the ground of his ruling, but his reasons — a practice which has been called commendable. (See Steele v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 402, 405 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292].) However, while it is helpful to have the trial judge's reasons made express, we review here his decision and not his reasons.
KAUS, J. These two consolidated appeals represent the appellate phase of a minor skirmish in a major battle which has once before reached the official reports in Steele v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 402 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292]. The parent litigation is a case entitled Steele v. Litton Industries, Inc., et al., which for several years has been and still is pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Therefore the case must be returned to the trial court to permit it to exercise its discretion. ( Steele v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 402, 405 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292].) [7] Underlying the statutory scheme, the policy of the law is to place administration in the hands of the persons most likely to convert the property to the advantage of those beneficially interested.
Plaintiff argues that because the trial judge based his decision on an erroneous opinion, the decision necessarily should be reversed. Plaintiff cites Steele v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 402, 405 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292], as authority for considering the trial judge's memorandum in explanation of his decision. In the Steele case a motion for inspection of documents was involved, which motion called for the exercise of discretion by the trial judge.
The court should utilize its power to make such orders as justice requires. ( Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (Aug. 1961), 56 Cal.2d 355 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266]; Steele v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 402 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292].) [4] It is well within the discretion of the trial court to require that questions must call for information as to specific facts and unless there is a clear abuse of discretion shown the appellate court should not consider the matter de novo. [5] Also, the fact that the trial court could have required further answers does not mean that it was compelled to do so.
1957, chap. 1904). There are also pending five other cases involving various facets of the discovery act ( Carlson v. Superior Court, L.A. No. 26111, post, p. 431 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 132, 364 P.2d 308]; WestPico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, L.A. No. 26171, post, p. 407 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 119, 364 P.2d 295]; Steele v. Superior Court, L.A. No. 26172, post, p. 402 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292]; Filipoff v. Superior Court, L.A. No. 26265, post, p. 443 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 139, 364 P.2d 315]; Cembrook v. Superior Court, S.F. No. 20707, post, p. 423 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 127, 364 P.2d 303]). Although each of the six cases presents its own particular issues, there are certain general contentions that are common to all.
KAUS, Justice. These two consolidated appeals represent the appellate phase of a minor skirmish in a major battle which has once before reached the official reports in Steele v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 402, 15 Cal.Rptr. 116, 364 P.2d 292. The parent litigation is a case entitled Steele v. Litton Industries, Inc., et al., which for several years has been and still is pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Hearing Granted Jan. 4, 1961. Opinion vacated 15 Cal.Rptr. 116. Crowley & Rhoden, Hollywood, for petitioner.