Adams v. Corr. Corp.. of Am.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 11CA1505.,11CA1505. |
| Citation | 264 P.3d 640 |
| Parties | Vance ADAMS, Shane L. Allen, Richard A. Allison, Sean Andrews, Isaac Banks, Kenneth Batts, John Bowen, Harold Brantley, Roy D. Buck, Ronald Buzzard, Jr., Patrick Calf Robe, Israel Chavez, Brandon Lee Clary, Robin B. Combs, Sr., David Cooper, Robert Dermates, Daniel Diaz, Phillip Dixon, Justin Dougherty, Wesley Fair, Jose Fernandez, Thomas G. Gallegos, Roy Gibbens, Oliver Giller, Donald Gilliland, Jeff Gillis, Zelo Goings, Mwamba H. Goma, Delfino Gonzales, Richard Gonzales, Erwin P. Greer, Bruce Hatfield, Rodney J. Harris, Billy Hendrix, Jeff Howard, Warren N. Johnson, Douglas Justice, Thomas Kennedy, Matt Kulas, Ronald Larkins, Uimaiama Luasiva, James Lawver, Mike Lopez, Joseph Lujan, Kenneth Mackey, Rick Maestas, Carlos Rey Martinez, Tommy McClain, Pablo Melendez, Donald Mester, Brian Mills, Terry Mowatt, Anh Vu Nguyen, William Osterfoss, Socrates Packer, Ralph D. Patrick, Stephen D. Peck, Carroll Pollard, Paul I. Pollard, Jr., George L. Ramey, William J. Roper, III, Timothy L. Schaff, Donald C. Scholoff, Jeremy Simmons, Carlos Smith, Rick Smith, Robby Ray Summa, Paul Wade, Chris Watkins, Deon Waynewood, Jerry M. Weir, Tyronne Williams, Christopher J. Wimberly, David E. Wright, Jared Adam, William Albillar, Howard Alley, Jr., Rudy Alverado, Lonnie L. Anderson, John C. Armintrout, Chad Ball, Adolfo R. Barrera, Michael Basbagill, Felipe Blan, Joe Bland, Andres Bocanegra, Terry Borrowdale, Josh Boyce, Robert Boyer, Chad Bremer, Edward Lavon Brown, Carolos Cid, Michael Clarke, Gary Davis, Sylvester Davis, Wendell Degree, Chris Delgado, Ryan Delmastro, Scott Doty, Steven Driver, Jr., Kevin Drum, Dennis Duncan, Larry Eche, Vincent A. Espalin, Isaac Espinoza, Franco Fernando, Robert I. Foster, Gary M. Frostman, Mark Garcia, Jeff Gerrard, Gerard Gleiforst, Kenneth Griffin, Kevin Gustafson, Joseph Gutierrez, Jaime R. Guzman, Steve Haden, Justin Hall, Roy R. Hanthorn, John Harvey, Albert Hayes, Glen R. Hernet, Jose Thomas Herrera, Fermin R. Idnojos, Jr., Lawrence Howard, Darell Howze, Dale Hunt, William F. Jarred, Dewarren Johnson, Devon P. Jones, Niguel Jones, William T. Juarbe, Dan Kathol, Timothy A. Kimler, Charles Kirkman, Danny Knight, Daniel Larson, Ronald Law, Brent Legg, Chad A. Lehman, Isaac L'Esperance, Charles Loftus, Warren E. Lovato, Jeffery Loveall, Danny J. Martinez, Barrington N. McIntosh, James McPherson, Lonnie Morisch, Frederick J. Morris, William Morris, Matt L. Murdock, Thomas Nichol, Ross Nuanes, Fanoalii Oto, Scott Padilla, David Pekkala, Donald J. Perkins, Steve Pickett, Mitch Pino, Ron L. Raile, Jimmy L. Ramseyer, Kyle W. Rawlings, Bo Redhawk, Kenneth C. Reed, Dennis Rohrbach, Tommy J. Romero, Larry D. Ronne–Stombaugh, Richard Ronquillo, Fabrizio Rosero, Kenneth Schwartz, Mark Serratore, Jay Silva, Forrest Sims, Brian Skinner, Herbert Smith, Travis Smith, Charles J. Smythe, III, Curtis Solomon, Karvelas Stevens, David Suddarth, Clifford Short, Shawn Swenson, Anthony L. Tannahill, Richard Templeton, Jason Tontegode, Robert Toulouse, Brian Towne, Rocky Trujillo, Larry R. Turner, Hilario A. Vasquez, Benjamin M. Velarde, Harminder Virk, Michael P. Wainscott, Lucas Walters, Jay Ward, James Wayne, Gary Wescott, Thomas West, Gregory White, Ricky Williams, Rudolph Williams, Jeremy M. Willison, Ty Wilshusen, Arnold Wyrick, Carl F. Yens, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Trine & Metcalf, P.C., William A. Trine, Boulder, Colorado; Cheryl L. Trine Law Firm, LLC, Cheryl L. Trine, Boulder, Colorado; Deborah Taussig, LLC, Deborah Taussig, Boulder, Colorado, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.Hall & Evans, LLC, Andrew D. Ringel, Gillian Dale, Edmund M. Kennedy, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellee.Opinion by Judge WEBB.
Plaintiffs petition under C.A.R. 4.2 and section 13–4–102.1, C.R.S.2011, for interlocutory review of the trial court's order denying their motion to compel defendant, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), to provide them with electronic copies of their deposition transcripts so that they can review and correct the transcripts under C.R.C.P. 30(e). We conclude that the question of law presented in this order is not controlling, and therefore deny the petition.
Plaintiffs, 201 present and former inmates of the Crowley County Correctional Facility, seek damages for injuries suffered during a riot in which they did not participate. They allege that CCA, as owner and operator of the facility, was negligent in not preventing or controlling the riot.
CCA has deposed 118 of the plaintiffs and has stated its intention to depose the remainder. During each deposition, the deponent reserved the right to review the transcript and make corrections. CCA has begun purchasing transcripts of these depositions. Along with the original and one copy of each transcript purchased, the court reporters have provided CCA with an electronic copy.
Before the trial court, plaintiffs asserted that they are indigent and thus unable to purchase deposition transcripts to review. The approximately 170 plaintiffs who either remain incarcerated, some out of state, or are in halfway houses, further asserted that they cannot travel to court reporters' offices to review transcripts and make corrections. Solely for purposes of this opinion, we accept these assertions, which CCA did not challenge below.
Based on these assertions, plaintiffs moved the trial court for an order stating that CCA must provide each deponent with an electronic copy of each transcript that it has purchased or will purchase to enable the deponent to review his or her testimony and make corrections pursuant to C.R.C.P. 30(e). The court denied the motion, explaining, “[T]his is clearly a money issue and this Court will not take the work product from the reporter.”
Plaintiffs then moved the trial court for an order authorizing a petition for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. Over CCA's opposition, the court certified the appeal. It found that the ruling involved a controlling question of law, the resolution of which would promote a more orderly disposition of motion practice involving depositions as well as use of depositions at trial.
In 2010, the General Assembly enacted section 13–4–102.1, which provides:
(1) The court of appeals, under rules promulgated by the Colorado supreme court, may permit an interlocutory appeal of a certified question of law in a civil matter from a district court or the probate court of the city and county of Denver if:
(a) The trial court certifies that immediate review may promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation; and
(b) The order involves a controlling and unresolved question of law.
(2) A majority of the judges who are in regular active service on the court of appeals and who are not disqualified may, if approved by rules promulgated by the Colorado supreme court, order that an interlocutory appeal permitted by the court of appeals be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc.
To implement the statute, in 2011, our supreme court adopted C.A.R. 4.2, which defines an “unresolved question of law,” but otherwise tracks the statute's operative language.
No reported appellate decision has addressed either the statute or the rule. Some of the language in our statute is similar to the federal interlocutory appeal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).1 When a federal law is similar to a Colorado statute, federal cases may be useful, although not determinative, in analyzing comparable language in the Colorado provision. See, e.g., Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123, 1125 n. 3 (Colo.1982). Several states also have such statutes.2
Initially, we conclude that we need not defer to the trial court's findings regarding the propriety of an interlocutory appeal. Under both the rule and the statute, this court, in its discretion, “may” order that an interlocutory appeal be heard. See Larry H. Miller Corp.–Denver v. Urban Drainage & Flood Control Dist., 64 P.3d 941, 946 (Colo.App.2003) ().3
Next, we consider whether interlocutory appeals of discovery orders should uniformly be disallowed. How federal courts of appeals have treated such interlocutory appeals is informative, although not binding.
Where the appeal would address only whether the trial court had abused its discretion in a discovery matter, interlocutory review is generally not allowed.4 In contrast, where a discovery order presents a question of law, such as the availability of a corporation's attorney-client privilege in litigation against its shareholders, interlocutory review is occasionally granted.5 Because this distinction is consistent with the language of our statute and C.A.R. 4.2, we apply it here, in lieu of the more variable case law among states having similar statutes.6
The order before us involves the interplay among C.R.C.P. 30(b)(2), 30(e), and 30(f)(2).
• C.R.C.P. 30(b)(2) provides: “Unless the court otherwise orders, the party taking the deposition shall bear the cost of the recording.”
• C.R.C.P. 30(e) provides that upon request, the court reporter must notify the deponent that the transcript is available. “Within 30 days of receipt of such notification the deponent shall review the transcript or recording and, if the deponent makes changes in the form or substance of the deposition, shall sign a statement reciting such changes and the deponent's reasons for making them and send such statement to the officer.”
• Rule 30(f)(2) provides: “Upon payment of reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a copy of the transcript ... to any party or to the deponent.”
Plaintiffs assert that the controlling and unresolved legal question is: “Are plaintiffs entitled to obtain electronic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Affiniti Colo., LLC v. Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.
...privilege does not survive the dissolution of a corporation. As recognized by the division in Adams v. Corrections Corp. of America , 264 P.3d 640, 644 (Colo. App. 2011), interlocutory review of discovery orders that address "only whether the trial court ... abused its discretion in a disco......
-
Shaw Constr., LLC v. United Builder Servs., Inc.
...the Petition ¶ 8 “[T]his court, in its discretion, ‘may’ order that an interlocutory appeal be heard.” Adams v. Corrections Corp. of America, 264 P.3d 640, 643 (Colo.App.2011). No published decision under C.A.R. 4.2 and section 13–4–102.1, C.R.S.2011, has addressed the interlocutory appeal ......
-
Garrett v. Credit Bureau of Carbon Cnty., Court of Appeals No. 17CA1504
...P.3d 769, 772-73 (Colo. 2008). Similarly, we may look to federal cases applying the FDCPA for guidance. See Adams v. Corr. Corp. of America , 264 P.3d 640, 643 (Colo. App. 2011) ("When a federal law is similar to a Colorado statute, federal cases may be useful, although not determinative, i......
-
Rich v. Ball Ranch P'ship
...24, 296 P.3d 145. We have also construed court rules under this procedure. Kowalchik, 2012 COA 25, 277 P.3d 885 ; Adams v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 264 P.3d 640 (Colo.App.2011). And we have considered the reach of the common law under this procedure. Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC v. He......
-
Knowing When to Change Trains: the Ins and Outs of Interlocutory Appeals
...31. Farm Deals, LLLP v. Colorado, P.3d , 2012 COA 6, 2012 Colo.App.LEXIS 17 (Colo.App. Jan. 5, 2012). 32. Adams v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 264 P.3d 640, 646 (Colo.App. 2011). 33. See Webb, "Interlocutory Appeals in Civil Cases Under C.A.R. 4.2,"41 The Colorado Lawyer 67 (April 2012) (more infor......
-
Civil Interlocutory Appeals in Colorado State Courts
...counsel) [123] Compare Leaffer, 44 P.3d at 1077 (discovery rulings are not exempted from CAR 21 review) with Adams v. Corr Corp. of Am., 264 P.3d 640, 646 (Colo.App. 2011) (Rule 4.2 review is almost never available for discovery or other discretionary rulings) [124] CAR 21(a)(1). --------- ...
-
Chapter 5 - § 5.2 • INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS IN CIVIL CASES
...criteria have been met, whether to accept the appeal remains within the discretion of the court of appeals. Adams v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 264 P.3d 640, 643-44 (Colo. App. 2011); Kowalchik v. Brohl, 277 P.3d 885, 888 (Colo. App. 2012) (exercising discretion to accept an interlocutory appeal i......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.1 • COURT OF APPEALS
...review. C.A.R. 4.2(d)(4). See generally Tomar Dev., Inc. v. Bent Tree, LLC, 264 P.3d 651 (Colo. App. 2011); Adams v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 264 P.3d 640 (Colo. App. 2011). For a description of this procedure, see Chapter 5, "Appealable Judgments and Orders." § 2.1.3—Other Appealable Orders In ......