Archive: July 29, 2013

1
Citing the Lack of a Clear Distinction between the Two Tiers of Discovery, Court Adopts “Practical Approach” for Addressing Disputes over Scope

Citing the Lack of a Clear Distinction between the Two Tiers of Discovery, Court Adopts “Practical Approach” for Addressing Disputes over Scope

DCP Midstream LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., —P.3d—, 2013 WL 3225846 (Colo. June 24, 2013)

In this breach of contract case, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed the court’s role in managing the scope of discovery under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)—which was amended in 2002 “to conform to its federal counterpart.”  The court concluded that “when a scope objection is raised, C.R.C.P. 26(b) requires the trial court to take an active role managing discovery and to determine the appropriate scope of discovery in light of the reasonable needs of the case,” and held that “to resolve a dispute regarding the proper scope of discovery in a particular case, the trial court should, at a minimum, consider the cost-benefit and proportionality factors set forth in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(F).” 

Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.