In Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 1054.3's pretrial disclosure requirement that defendants reveal the names and addresses of all witnesses defendants intend to call at trial. (Izazaga, at pp. 365-367.) The Court held the rule merely accelerated the timing of a disclosure the defendants planned to make in any event and thus did not compel disclosure in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Izazaga, at pp. 366-367.) The court also upheld the statutory discovery rules against a Sixth Amendment challenge. The court cited United States v. Nobles, in which the United States Supreme Court held a defendant could be ordered to turn over a defense investigator's notes if the defendant called the investigator as a witness. (United States v. Nobles (1975) 422 U.S. 225, 240-241.) Izazaga explains: "In Nobles the court stated, 'The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth.' (Nobles, at p. 241 ... .) Prosecutorial discovery of the statements of intended defense witnesses is a 'legitimate demand' of the criminal justice system aimed at avoiding testimonial 'half-truths' by promoting what then-Justice Traynor referred to as 'the orderly ascertainment of the truth.' (Jones v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 56, 60 22 Cal. Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919.)" (Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 379.) The California Supreme Court rejected the argument that these principles did not apply to pretrial discovery, as distinct from discovery during trial (at or just before the time the defendant actually presents the witness). "The limited and conditional discovery authorized by the new discovery chapter is constitutionally acceptable under the reasoning of Nobles, supra, 422 U.S. 225, regardless of the timing of the discovery." (Id. at p. 380.)