LeGrange v. District Court, In and For Grand County, 82SA530
| Decision Date | 31 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82SA530,82SA530 |
| Citation | 657 P.2d 454 |
| Parties | Brenda LeGRANGE, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT, In and For the COUNTY OF GRAND, State of Colorado, and The Honorable Richard P. Doucette, a Judge of said Court, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Dana F. Strout, Dana F. Strout, P.C., Denver, for petitioner.
Anthony J. DiCola, Hot Sulphur Springs, for respondents.
The petitioner, Brenda LeGrange, brought this original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 seeking relief in the nature of prohibition. We issued a rule to show cause why the respondent district court had not abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering that the petitioner furnish documents, during pre-trial discovery proceedings, establishing her legal right to be in the United States. Because we conclude that the order to show cause was improvidently granted, we discharge the rule.
On May 10, 1982, LeGrange filed a complaint in the District Court for Grand County. In her first claim, LeGrange alleges that the defendant, Richard J. Stemple, executed a promissory note in the amount of $100,000 payable to her, that Stemple paid only $8,000, that the note is in default, and that Stemple owes $92,000. LeGrange's second claim is based on an alleged breach of contract. LeGrange claims that she and Stemple were involved in a real estate development project as partners. LeGrange claims that she agreed to sell her interest in the project to Stemple for $100,000 and that Stemple paid only $8,000, leaving a balance due and owing of $92,000.
Stemple filed his answer on July 27, 1982, in which he denied the allegations made in LeGrange's complaint. He also raised two affirmative defenses. First, Stemple claims he has paid all monies due the plaintiff. Second, he alleges that he never made or delivered the promissory note to the plaintiff and further claims that the note is a fraudulent document.
On August 30, 1982, Stemple served a notice of deposition on LeGrange. The notice also included a request to produce documents. Paragraph 7 of the request asks that "[a]ll documents establishing plaintiff's legal right to be in the United States" be produced. Pursuant to the notice, LeGrange was to appear for her deposition and produce the documents on October 13, 1982. LeGrange filed a motion for protective orders directed to paragraph 7 of the notice to produce on October 8, 1982. She asserted that production of "documents establishing her legal right to be in the United States is immaterial, not probative, irrelevant and designed for the sole purpose of harassing and annoying the plaintiff." Stemple filed a memorandum and response to the plaintiff's motion for protective orders. The respondent judge entered a minute order denying the motion filed by LeGrange and ordered her to "furnish the requested documents within 30 days." LeGrange then filed this original proceeding.
LeGrange makes two arguments in support of her position that the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. District Court, Second Judicial Dist., City and County of Denver
...order unless the trial court has abused its discretion. See Bond v. District Court, 682 P.2d 33, 36 (Colo.1984); LeGrange v. District Court, 657 P.2d 454, 455 (Colo.1983). I begin my analysis with a review of Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), which governs the permissible scope of dis......
-
Panos Inv. Co. v. District Court In and For Larimer County
...Simply stated, we will not consider issues and evidence presented for the first time in original proceedings. See LeGrange v. District Court, 657 P.2d 454 (Colo.1983). In City of Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177, 519 P.2d 325 (1974), we "Relief in the nature of prohibition ......
-
Lambdin v. District Court In and For 18th Judicial Dist. of County of Arapahoe
...proceedings, we have refused to consider constitutional issues that have not been presented to the trial court. LeGrange v. District Court, 657 P.2d 454, 455 (Colo.1983); Western Food Plan, Inc. v. District Court, 198 Colo. 251, 257, 598 P.2d 1038, 1042 (1979). "The purpose of this rule is ......
-
Smith v. District Court, Second Judicial Dist.
...We will uphold a trial court's pretrial discovery orders unless the trial court has abused its discretion. See LeGrange v. District Court, 657 P.2d 454, 455 (Colo.1983). Although the record does not contain the Investors' complaint, Calvary Temple acknowledges in its brief that the Investor......