Adams v. Corrections Corp. of America
264 P.3d 640
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs, inmates from Crowley County Correctional Facility, allege CCA was negligent in not preventing or controlling a riot.
- CCA has deposed 118 plaintiffs and intends to depose the rest; transcripts are being purchased with electronic copies provided to CCA.
- Plaintiffs claim indigence and inability to purchase or travel to court reporters to review transcripts for 30(e) corrections.
- Trial court denied a motion to compel electronic copies at no charge, citing cost/work product concerns; court denied interlocutory relief on that basis.
- Trial court certified the issue for interlocutory review under C.A.R. 4.2; question presented concerns discovery-related rights to transcript copies for review and correction.
- Court analyzes whether the issue is an unresolved and controlling question of law under the new civil interlocutory appeal framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to free electronic deposition copies. | Plaintiffs allege indigence and travel limitations; right to 30(e) review should be free. | CCA argues copying costs are cost of recording under Rule 30(b)(2). | Not controlling; question denied as interlocutory appeal. |
| Whether the question is a controlling question of law. | Issue involves statutory interpretation of 30(e) and 30(f)(2). | Discovery rulings rarely present controlling questions of law. | Not controlling; ruling affirmed as non-controlling. |
| Whether C.A.R. 4.2 and §13-4-102.1 require certification of discovery orders for interlocutory review. | Certification promotes orderly disposition and review of unresolved questions. | Certification must meet three prongs; here, not all met. | Petition denied; no interlocutory review. |
| Whether the petition could proceed under C.A.R. 21 rather than 4.2. | There is potential for Supreme Court review under C.A.R. 21. | C.A.R. 21 is not applicable to this proceeding. | Not applicable; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larry H. Miller Corp.-Denver v. Urban Drainage & Flood Control Dist., 64 P.3d 941 (Colo. App. 2003) (discretionary power to choose among alternatives under 'may' language)
- People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162 (Colo. 2006) (statutory interpretation principles apply to rules of procedure)
- Schroer v. United States, 250 F.R.D. 531 (D.Colo. 2008) (dicta supporting position on discovery-related relief)
- Waterbury v. City of Showa Denko K.K., 953 F.2d 162 (4th Cir. 1992) (illustrative of impact of discovery orders on large groups)
- White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1994) (discovery rulings and interlocutory review considerations)
- In re Showa Denko K.K. L-Tryptophan Products Liability Litigation-II, 953 F.2d 162 (4th Cir. 1992) (considerations on broad applicability of discovery rulings)