In In re Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122, the Supreme Court stated that, while it is true the prosecution has no general duty to seek out, obtain, and disclose all evidence that might be beneficial to the defense, it does have the duty, when presented with an informal request from the defense, to satisfy the specific discovery provisions of Penal Code section 1054 et seq. The court went on to emphasize the need to discourage the practice of deliberately failing to learn or acquire information that must be disclosed to the defense before trial. (Littlefield, supra, 5 Cal.4th 122, 133.) The Court observed that "allowing the defense to refrain deliberately from learning the address or whereabouts of a prospective witness, and thus to furnish to the prosecution nothing more than the name of such a witness, would defeat the objectives of the voters who enacted Penal Code section 1054.3: to permit the prosecution a reasonable opportunity to investigate prospective defense witnesses before trial so as to determine the nature of their anticipated testimony, to discover any matter that might reveal a bias or otherwise impeach the witness's testimony, and to avoid the need for midtrial continuances for these purposes." (Ibid.)