Wilson, Lungren Told to Testify on Prop. 187 : Courts: Federal judge rules that they must give depositions as to why measure on illegal immigration is constitutional. Officials say they will seek to have the decision quashed.

Overruling objections by state lawyers, a federal magistrate judge Tuesday directed Gov. Pete Wilson and state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren to explain, under oath, why they believe that Proposition 187 is constitutional.

“This is not just the normal case,” said Magistrate Judge Joseph Reichmann at the conclusion of an hourlong hearing. “[And] these two gentlemen have been prime movers [in the initiative].”

Under the extremely unusual ruling, Wilson and Lungren were directed to make themselves available for pretrial depositions requested by Venice attorney Stephen Yagman, who filed one of four federal lawsuits due to be tried jointly in September to determine the legality of the illegal immigration initiative that was overwhelmingly approved by California voters in November.

The controversial civil rights lawyer, who has previously sent Wilson and Lungren notices to appear at his oceanfront office for questioning this Thursday and Friday, contended in his legal brief:, “These two political hacks indeed have chutzpah to claim they are too important to be deposed.”

State officials, expressing shock at the turn of events, said they would immediately seek to have the magistrate’s ruling stayed or quashed by U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, who has previously issued a preliminary injunction forbidding implementation of the initiative pending the upcoming trial in her courtroom.

Wilson’s spokeswoman Kristine Berman said the governor’s office is confident that Reichmann’s ruling will be overturned because of past appellate court decisions saying “that heads of government agencies aren’t normally subject to depositions.”

Several legal experts also expressed doubts that Wilson--who by chance is scheduled to be in Los Angeles on Thursday afternoon to formally announce his presidential candidacy on the “Larry King Live” television show--will end up appearing first in Venice.

Even if Pfaelzer does not overturn the ruling, state officials could turn to the appellate courts or even unilaterally postpone the deposition, experts say.

“If they declined to appear, the remedy is you bring a motion to compel their appearance . . . and if they decline again they’d be subpoenaed but that could be remedied by appearing and refusing to testify,” said Santa Monica attorney Brian Lysaght. “With all due respect to Mr. Yagman, who is certainly very inventive, this is probably going to prove ultimately to be a Pyrrhic victory.”

State officials say they do not recall another recent case in which the standing governor has been compelled to undergo a sworn deposition.

“Usually, they are quashed because there is deference given to someone who could be pestered to death by litigants who want to get him in court,” said former state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, who recalls submitting to a single civil deposition during his eight-year stint in Sacramento that ended in 1991.

In Washington in February, a federal judge granted a request by President Clinton to halt all discovery in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by former Arkansas state employee Paula Corbin Jones while an appeals court considers issues of presidential immunity.

Clinton did, on the other hand, subsequently volunteer to submit to two hours of questioning under oath in the Whitewater case.

Former President Ronald Reagan also gave an eight-hour deposition in an Iran-Contra criminal case in the same Downtown federal courthouse where Reichmann issued his ruling Tuesday. But that was two years after Reagan left office.

After Tuesday’s hearing, a beaming Yagman said Wilson and Lungren should enjoy visiting his Venice office, even if they feel uncomfortable with his questions.

“They couldn’t come to have their depositions taken in a more congenial setting,” he said. “The air is fresh and the ions are negative--which makes people feel good--because it’s down by the water.”

In court, Deputy Atty. Gen. Jon M. Ichinaga contended that Wilson and Lungren are too busy to be questioned by Yagman and that their answers would be irrelevant in determining whether the wording of Proposition 187 is constitutional.

Yagman countered that the pair should once and for all be forced to prove whether they have evidence that illegal immigrants cause a severe enough economic burden on the state to warrant their being banned from a public school education.

Moreover, the civil rights attorney said he wanted to find out from California’s top constitutional officers whether state workers have drafted regulations that would be used to implement the ballot measure if it is declared legal.

Arguing that Wilson should have plenty of time to be deposed, Yagman told the court, “I have no idea what Pete Wilson does except have press conferences.”

Reichmann, noting that both attorneys had made strong oral arguments, concluded that he had little choice in the matter.

“I’m not overwhelmingly convinced of the need to depose them, but I see certain possibilities . . . that have possible relevancy,” he said. “The application [of the state] to prevent the deposition is denied.”

An attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is challenging Proposition 187’s constitutionality, called the magistrate’s ruling “a pleasant surprise.”

Vibiana Andrade, who attended the hearing but did not participate, said that MALDEF has also intended to seek depositions from Wilson and Lungren, but had been planning to do so later in the legal process.