## Facts

- A highway accident involving a Greyhound bus led to a personal injury action by Earline Z. Clay and Leslie Randolph Clay against Greyhound.
- During discovery, plaintiffs moved under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031 to compel Greyhound to produce specified documents for inspection and copying.
- The requested materials included written statements obtained shortly after the accident from independent witnesses by investigators working for Greyhound or its insurer.
- Greyhound argued the statements were protected by attorney-client privilege and immune as attorney work product because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation.
- The trial court granted the motion and ordered production.
- Greyhound sought an original writ of prohibition in the California Supreme Court to prevent enforcement of the discovery order.

## Issues

1. Whether independent witness statements in a defendant’s possession are protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege.
2. Whether such statements are immune from discovery as attorney work product.
3. What showing of “good cause” is required under § 2031 to compel production of witness statements.
4. Whether compelled production under the discovery statutes constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure, rendering the statutes unconstitutional.
5. To what extent discovery must be limited to evidence admissible at trial.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court denied Greyhound’s request for a peremptory writ of prohibition and allowed the trial court’s discovery order to stand.
- The Court held the witness statements were not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- The Court held there was no absolute work-product immunity barring discovery of factual witness statements.
- The Court concluded plaintiffs showed sufficient good cause under § 2031 given Greyhound’s exclusive access to timely witness accounts not otherwise reasonably obtainable.
- The Court rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the discovery scheme judicially supervised and limited to designated materials.

## Legal Principles

- Discovery statutes are construed liberally to reduce surprise and permit disclosure of relevant information needed for trial preparation.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in discovery matters; extraordinary writ relief is appropriate only for a clear abuse of discretion.
- Material need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable; it is enough that it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
- Attorney-client privilege is strictly construed and protects confidential attorney-client communications; it does not extend to factual statements by independent third-party witnesses to investigators.
- Work-product protection does not create an absolute immunity for ordinary factual materials such as witness statements; heightened protection may apply to core attorney mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories.
- Court-ordered discovery under statutory standards such as designation, relevance, and good cause does not constitute an unconstitutional unreasonable search or seizure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an order compelling production of post-accident witness statements, holding that liberal discovery under § 2031 permits access to factual investigative materials upon good cause, that attorney-client privilege does not cover third-party witness accounts, that work product is not an absolute bar to discovery of such facts, and that judicially supervised discovery does not violate constitutional search-and-seizure protections.


Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 364 P.2d 266 (Cal. 1961)