Antero Resources Corp. v. Strudley
347 P.3d 149
Colo.2015Background
- Strudleys sueded Antero Resources for injuries allegedly from drilling operations near their home.
- Trial court issued a Lone Pine–style modified case management order requiring prima facie evidence before discovery.
- Strudleys provided maps, medical records, and some affidavits but no definitive prima facie evidence of exposure or causation.
- Trial court dismissed with prejudice after finding insufficient prima facie evidence under the Lone Pine order.
- Court of appeals held Lone Pine orders unauthorized under Colorado law; Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide Rule 16 authority and use of Lone Pine orders.
- Colorado Supreme Court held that C.R.C.P. 16 does not authorize Lone Pine orders and affirmed the appellate court’s reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 16 authorizes Lone Pine/modified orders | Strudleys contend Lone Pine-like filter is not authorized | Antero Resources argues Rule 16 permits such orders for complex actions | No; Rule 16 does not authorize Lone Pine orders |
| Standard of review for rule interpretation | Defer to trial court’s discretionary authority under Rule 16 | Interpretation is a legal question reviewed de novo | De novo review; misapplication is an abuse of discretion |
| Effect of Rule 16 differences from Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c) | Colorado revision intended broader discovery management without prima facie dismissal | Federal authority not adopted in Colorado; no Lone Pine analogue | Colorado did not adopt Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c) authority for Lone Pine |
| Availability of other tools to manage discovery | Other Colorado rules suffice to address nonmeritorious claims | Lone Pine necessary to manage complex case burdens | Tools other than Lone Pine available; Lone Pine absent statutory/Rule basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis, Inc. v. District Court, 186 Colo. 226, 526 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1974) (discovery should not be conditioned on prima facie proof before disclosure)
- Direct Sales Tire Co. v. District Court, 686 P.2d 1316 (Colo. 1984) (discovery rules should be liberally construed; prima facie burden not required for discovery)
- Simeone v. Girard City Bd. of Educ., 872 N.E.2d 344 (Ohio App. 2007) (early Lone Pine-like orders may be abuse of discretion)
- DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 303 P.3d 1187 (Colo. 2013) (active judicial management; discovery narrowing; significance of Rule 16/26 changes)