C.R.C.P. 31

History

Source: (a) amended and adopted April 14, 1994, effective January 1, 1995, for all cases filed on or after that date; committee comment approved June 10, 1994; (a)(4) amended and adopted December 14, 2011, effective January 1, 2012, for all cases pending on or filed on or after January 1, 2012, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 1(b); (a)(2) and (3) and comments amended and adopted May 28, 2015, effective July 1, 2015, for cases filed on or after July 1, 2015. Cross references: For subpoena for depositions, see C.R.C.P. 45(e); for taking of deposition of public or private corporation, partnership, association, or other entity, see C.R.C.P. 30(b)(6); for proceedings in taking depositions, see C.R.C.P. 30(c), (e), and (f); for notice of filing with deposi- tions upon oral examination, see C.R.C.P. 30(f). COMMENTS [1] Revised C.R.C.P. 31 now interrelates with the differential case management features of C.R.C.P. 16 and C.R.C.P. 26. Because of mandatory disclosure, substantially less discov- ery is needed. [2] A discovery schedule for the case is required by C.R.C.P. 16(b)(1)(IV). Under the requirements of that Rule, the parties must set forth in the Case Management Order the timing and number of depositions and the basis for the necessity of such discovery with attention to the presumptive limitations and standards set forth in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2). There is also the require- ment that counsel certify they have advised their clients of the estimated expenses and fees involved in the discovery. Discovery is thus tailored to the particular case. The parties in the first instance and ultimately the Court are re- sponsible for setting reasonable limits and pre- venting abuse. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Depositions and Discovery, Rules 26 to 37’’, see 28 Dicta 375 (1951). For article, ‘‘Depositions and Discov- ery: Rules 26-37’’, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 562 (1951). For article, ‘‘Plaintiff’s Advanta- geous Use of Discovery, Pre-Trial and Sum- mary Judgment’’, see 40 Den. L. Ctr. J. 192 (1963). For article, ‘‘A Deposition Primer, Part I: Setting Up the Deposition’’, see 11 Colo. Law. 938 (1982). For article, ‘‘Alternative De- positions: Practice and Procedure’’, see 19 Colo. Law. 57 (1990). C.R.C.P. 26 to 37 must be construed to- gether along with the requirement that plaintiff establish a prima facie case for punitive dam- ages, as a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s right to discovery of defendant’s financial infor- mation. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). For purposes of discovery in negligence action by patient who was infected with the AIDS virus after a blood transfusion, patient- plaintiff was entitled to submit written questions to anonymous blood donor, but may not ask donor’s name or address. Belle Bonfils Memo- rial Blood Center v. District Court, 763 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1988). Applied in Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981).