Tag Archives: Initial Disclosures

CRCP 16.1: Under a Microscope, Open for Discussion

The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System has released its report examining CRCP 16.1. That Rule provides for a simplified pretrial procedure for actions seeking $100,000 or less from any one party. The original goal was to reduce the time to disposition and reduce costs for litigants. IAALS’s survey, however, suggests it has not been particularly effective, and that it does not address the concerns of litigants. For example, it notes that attorneys are highly skeptical of using disclosures as an alternative to discovery. The following commentary in the report is particularly enlightening:

“One attorney noted that the disclosure process has become ‘an art in evasion,’ another likened the task of continually having to request disclosure of relevant information to ‘pulling teeth,’ and a third noted the inability to ‘test the completeness and accuracy’ of disclosures.”

To read the full report, click HERE.

Click HERE for a link to a point/counter-point discussion on CRCP 16.1 in The Colorado Lawyer. (Please note that the document opened properly using Internet Explorer, but not with Google Chrome).

The CLR would like your opinion — please leave a comment below. (Please note comments may be submitted anonymously  and are moderated before they are posted.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Commentary

In Re Stacy Warden and Chris Warden as representatives of Noah Warden, a minor child v. Exempla, Inc. d/b/a Exempla Healthcare, et. al., 2012CO74 (December 20, 2012)

As we have re-discovered, after a tragedy people look for a cause. In this medical malpractice case, a baby was born with brain damage after being deprived of oxygen. The parents claim the cause was failure to monitor the baby during birth; the hospital claims the damage preceded labor. Three of Plaintiff’s experts were excluded. The Court reversed the exclusions. The first expert was excluded because she did not respond to Defendants’ experts. The Court disagreed, as she might refute Defendants’ theory of causation which relied heavily on a study she critiqued. Two experts addressing the child’s life expectancy were excluded as an “ambush.” The testimony should have been initially disclosed, but the delay was harmless because: 1) the trial is months away, 2) the importance to Plaintiff’s claim, 3) Defendants’ own experts raised the defense, and 4) lack of evidence of bad faith.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA199.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8780&courtid=2

Leave a comment

Filed under Evidence, Interlocutory Review, Personal Injury, Torts