|
2597 REVIEW DENIED A trial court was correct in concluding that a plaintiff who had sued a series of "doe" defendants, but was unable to narrow the group of prospective defendants down to a subset of any kind or to state any suspicions as to the identities of the unknown defendants, should not be given the power to depose unnamed members of the general public in an attempt to discover their identities and was correct in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to depose non-parties.CitationPEARLSON v DOES 1 TO 646 (Unknown Harassers) 76 CA4 1005 [See: Traweek v Finley 235 CA3 1128; Lyons v Wickhorst 42 C3 911]
|
|
