A deposition upon written questions may be taken of a public or private corporation, or a partnership, or association, or governmental agency in accordance with the provision of C.R.C.P. 30(b)(6).
C.R.C.P. 31
Comments
1995
[1] Revised C.R.C.P. 31 now interrelates with the differential case management features of C.R.C.P. 16 and C.R.C.P. 26. Because of mandatory disclosure, substantially less discovery is needed.
[2] A discovery schedule for the case is required by C.R.C.P. 16(b)(1)(IV). Under the requirements of that Rule, the parties must set forth in the Case Management Order the timing and number of depositions and the basis for the necessity of such discovery with attention to the presumptive limitations and standards set forth in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2). There is also the requirement that counsel certify they have advised their clients of the estimated expenses and fees involved in the discovery. Discovery is thus tailored to the particular case. The parties in the first instance and ultimately the Court are responsible for setting reasonable limits and preventing abuse.
Annotation Law reviews. For article, “Depositions and Discovery, Rules 26 to 37 “, see 28 Dicta 375 (1951). For article, “Depositions and Discovery: Rules 26-37 “, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 562 (1951). For article, “Plaintiff’s Advantageous Use of Discovery, Pre-Trial and Summary Judgment”, see 40 Den. L. Ctr. J. 192 (1963). For article, “A Deposition Primer, Part I: Setting Up the Deposition”, see 11 Colo. Law. 938 (1982). For article, “Alternative Depositions: Practice and Procedure”, see 19 Colo. Law. 57 (1990). C.R.C.P. 26 to 37 must be construed together along with the requirement that plaintiff establish a prima facie case for punitive damages, as a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s right to discovery of defendant’s financial information. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). For purposes of discovery in negligence action by patient who was infected with the AIDS virus after a blood transfusion, patient-plaintiff was entitled to submit written questions to anonymous blood donor, but may not ask donor’s name or address. Belle Bonfils Memorial Blood Center v. District Court, 763 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1988). Applied in Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981).
For subpoena for taking depositions, see C.R.C.P. 45(d); for taking of deposition of public or private corporation, partnership, association, or governmental agency, see C.R.C.P. 30(b)(6); for proceedings in taking depositions, see C.R.C.P. 30(c), (e), and (f); for notice of filing with depositions upon oral examination, see C.R.C.P. 30(f).