In Breceda v. Gamsby (1968) 267 Cal. App. 2d 167, the plaintiff filed an action arising out of injuries he suffered when a stack of lumber fell on him, allegedly due to a defective forklift. ( Id., at p. 168.) After the statute of limitations had run, he filed a Doe amendment naming Gamsby, a fellow employee (see id. at p. 173), alleging that Gamsby was liable because he had ordered or permitted the removal of a protective guard from the forklift. ( Id., at p. 169.) The plaintiff and his attorneys knew, when the complaint was filed, that Gamsby had been involved in removing the guard. However, it was not clear that his conduct had been sufficiently willful to remove it from the workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions. ( Id., at pp. 175-176.) The appellate court held that the amendment was not time-barred because, when the complaint was filed, the plaintiff and his attorneys were ignorant "of any facts . . . from which they might justifiably have inferred" that Gamsby acted willfully. ( Breceda v. Gamsby, supra, 267 Cal. App. 2d at p. 178.) Gamsby argued that "since . . . plaintiff had learned no new facts between the date of the original complaint and the date of the first amended complaint, plaintiff must be assumed to have known when the original complaint was filed more than he now admits." ( Id., at pp. 178-179.) The court disagreed: "We have outlined in detail what the evidence shows plaintiff knew when the original complaint was filed. Without doubt that information was inadequate to establish a calculated and conscious willingness by Gamsby to injure plaintiff. That the information then possessed may have been sufficient to have prompted an imaginative attorney to plead a cause of action . . . is beside the mark. Bad faith cannot be charged because a less creative attorney did not do that which an attorney later employed elected to do. It is a non sequitur to argue that because nothing more was learned between the dates of the two complaints, plaintiff must be assumed to have known more when he first pleaded than he now admits." ( Id., at p. 179.)