In Re District Court
256 P.3d 687
| Colo. | 2011Background
- M/M and Cedar Street sue RWO for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty over a real estate development deal; RWO represented M/M but also advised Cedar Street.
- During discovery, M/M sought Judd's compensation records from RWO for 2004–2007 and the methodology behind those compensation determinations.
- The trial court granted M/M's motion to compel, finding the documents directly relevant and lacking good cause to protect them; attorney fees were awarded to M/M.
- RWO petitioned for review; Colorado Supreme Court reviews the discovery ruling for abuse of discretion and privacy considerations.
- The court ultimately holds that disclosure must be guided by a privacy-based framework and remands for application of that test; it reverses the trial court’s attorney-fees ruling.
- Concurring opinion agrees on remand and clarifies framework applicability to privacy in discovery contexts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compensation records are protected by privacy rights | M/M asserts privacy protects Judd's compensation details. | Judd/RWO contend discovery should override privacy if relevant. | Privacy applies; disclosure requires balancing test. |
| What test should govern privacy-based discovery | Martinelli framework should govern balancing of confidentiality and need. | Stone/Tax-returns framework may be more appropriate in some contexts. | Adopt a comprehensive framework incorporating Martinelli and Stone principles. |
| Whether the trial court properly balanced interests and used least intrusive means | Court should uphold broad relevance and need for documents. | Court should limit intrusion and require least intrusive means if privacy is implicated. | Trial court abused discretion by not applying the balancing framework; failure to assess least intrusive means. |
| Whether the attorney-fees award against RWO was proper | Fees awarded due to failure to disclose were warranted. | No basis to award fees under privacy framework, | |
| no deviation from standard discovery practice. | Attorney-fees ruling reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinelli v. Dist. Court, 199 Colo. 163, 612 P.2d 1083 ((1980)) (three-part privacy balancing test for personnel files)
- Cantrell v. Cameron, 195 P.3d 659 ((Colo. 2008)) (privacy balancing for various confidential information contexts)
- Corbetta v. Albertson's, Inc., 975 P.2d 718 ((Colo. 1999)) (privacy considerations in discovery beyond general relevancy)
- Stone v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 185 P.3d 150 ((Colo. 2008)) (tax-returns discovery framework requiring relevance and compelling need)
- Alcon v. Spicer, 113 P.3d 735 ((Colo. 2005)) (limits on discovery in privacy-related contexts)
- Leidholt v. Dist. Court, 619 P.2d 768 ((Colo. 1980)) (privacy considerations in punitive damages context)