 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Herships v. Mannington Mills1/30/2002
, subd. (c).) Neither he nor respondent demanded an inspection. As we have indicated heretofore, no discovery under this section ever occurred.
In sum, in these circumstances, nothing in section 2031 or in the Discovery Act prevents a party from consulting with its own witnesses or inspecting a premises without notifying the opposing party, where it has been given informal permission to do so by the premises owner.
C. Appellant was not denied due process.
Having determined respondent's conduct was lawful and did not violate the Discovery Act, we conclude appellant was not denied due process by respondent's failure to advise him that it was inspecting the floor or having an expert review testing results on that floor model. Appellant had every right to demand an inspection of the premises, to conduct his own discovery, and to discover results of tests performed by respondents.
That he failed to timely invoke the discovery procedures available to him does not transform respondent's lawful conduct into a violation of appellant's right to due process.
CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs in connection with this appeal.
Kline, P.J.
We concur:
Haerle, J.
Lambden, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|