Record a Constitutional Oath supporting the protection to and from your State and Country Constitution through and by the American Declaration of Independence.
Record a Constitutional Oath supporting the protection to and from your State and Country Constitution through and by the American Declaration of Independence.
‘ I, Citizen, affirm that it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that through and by the Declaration of Independence I support the Constitutions of the United States’: State of (STATE) and the United States of America for the protection—to and from the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any purpose of evasion or mental reservation, that at this historical moment—I signal my willful intent to well and faithfully create this record—so help me Citizens and Nature. ’
‘ I, Citizen, affirm that it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that through and by the Declaration of Independence I support the Constitutions of the United States’: State of (STATE) and the United States of America for the protection—to and from the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any purpose of evasion or mental reservation, that at this historical moment—with terms for the directivity of time—I signal my willful intent to well and faithfully create this record—so help me Citizens and Nature. ’
Example of another Oath:
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Of historic and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine in many countries, although nowadays various modernized versions are often used.
Traditional Version of Hippocratic Oath:
I swear by Apollo The Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the Gods and Goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.
To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else.
I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.
Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.
Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I transgress it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.
Modern Version of Hippocratic Oath:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:…I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
-—- Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today. -—-
Father of talisments and keeper of wonders perfect in power that reveals the lights; the father of all perfection in the whole world is here.
Its force or power is entire (soul) if it be converted into earth; its power is perfected (mind) if it is turned in to earth; its power is whole (memory) if it can be turned into earth; its power is complete (will) if it can be turned into earth.
Oaths in Colorado Revised Statutes
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
*** Titles 1 through 11, 13 to 17, 19 through 21, 23, 25 through 38, and 40 through 43 of the Colorado Statutes have been updated and are current through all laws passed during the 2016 Legislative Session, subject to final review by the Colorado Office of Legislative Legal Services. The remainder of the titles are current through all laws passed during the 2015 Legislative Session and are in the process of being updated. ***
TITLE 1. ELECTIONS
GENERAL, PRIMARY, RECALL, AND CONGRESSIONAL VACANCY ELECTIONS
ARTICLE 1.ELECTIONS GENERALLY
PART 2. TERMS OF OFFICE
C.R.S. 1-1-202 (2016)
1-1-202. Commencement of terms – nonpartisan officers
COLORADO COURT RULES
Copyright (c) 2016 by Matthew Bender & Company Inc.
All rights reserved
*** This document reflects changes received through April 14, 2016 ***
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY
C.R.C.P. 30 (2016)
Rule 30. Depositions Upon Oral Examination.
(a) When Depositions May Be Taken. (1) Subject to the provisions of C.R.C.P. Rules 26(b)(2)(A) and 26(d), a party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination without leave of court except as provided in paragraph (2) of this section. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by subpoena as provided in C.R.C.P. 45.
(A) A proposed deposition, if taken, would result in more depositions than set forth in the Case Management Order;
(B) The person to be examined already has been deposed in the case;
(C) A party seeks to take a deposition before the time specified in C.R.C.P. 26(d) unless the notice contains a certification, with supporting facts, that the person to be examined is expected to leave the state and be unavailable for examination within the state if the person’s deposition is not taken before the expiration of such time period; or
(D) The person to be examined is confined in prison.
(b) Notice of Examination: General Requirements; Method of Recording; Production of Documents and Things; Deposition of Organization; Deposition by Telephone. (1) Consistent with C.R.C.P. 121, sec. 1-12, a party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs. If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced as set forth in the subpoena shall be attached to or included in the notice.
(2) The party taking the deposition shall state in the notice the method by which the testimony shall be recorded, which, unless the court otherwise orders, may be by sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means. Unless the court otherwise orders, the party taking the deposition shall bear the cost of the recording.
(3) Any party may provide for a transcription to be made from the recording of a deposition taken by non-stenographic means. With reasonable prior notice to the deponent and other parties, any party may designate another method of recording the testimony of the deponent in addition to the method specified by the person taking the deposition. Unless the court otherwise orders, each party designating an additional method of recording the testimony of a deponent shall bear the cost thereof.
(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a deposition shall be conducted before an officer appointed or designated pursuant to C.R.C.P. 28 and shall begin with a statement on the record by the officer that includes (a) the officer’s name and business address; (b) the date, time, and place of the deposition; (c) the name of the deponent; (d) the administration of the oath or affirmation to the deponent; and (e) an identification of all persons present. If the deposition is recorded other than stenographically, items (a) through (c) shall be repeated at the beginning of each unit of recorded tape or other recording medium. The appearance or demeanor of deponents or attorneys shall not be distorted by the use of camera or sound-recording techniques. At the conclusion of the deposition, the officer shall state on the record that the deposition is complete and shall set forth any stipulations made by counsel concerning the custody of the transcript or recording, the exhibits, or other pertinent matters.
(5) The notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request made in compliance with Rule 34 for the production of documents and tangible things at the taking of the deposition. The procedure of Rule 34 shall apply to the request.
(6) A party may in his notice name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency and designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which he will testify. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization. This subsection (b)(6) does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized in these rules.
(7) The parties may stipulate in writing or the court may upon motion order that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote electronic means. For the purposes of this rule and C.R.C.P. Rules 28(a), 37(a)(1), and 37(b)(1), a deposition taken by telephone or other remote electronic means is taken at the place where the deponent is to answer questions propounded to the deponent. The stipulation or order shall include the manner of recording the proceeding.
(c) Examination and Cross-Examination; Record of Examination; Oath; Objections. Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial under the provisions of the Colorado Rules of Evidence except CRE 103. The witness shall be put under oath or affirmation and the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken shall personally, or by someone acting under the officer’s direction and in the officer’s presence, record the testimony of the witness. The testimony shall be taken stenographically or recorded by any other method authorized by subsection (b)(2) of this Rule.
All objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, to the manner of taking it, to the evidence presented, to the conduct of any party, or in any other respect to the proceedings shall be noted by the officer upon the record of the deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections. In lieu of participating in the oral examination, parties may serve written questions in a sealed envelope on the party taking the deposition and the party taking the deposition shall transmit them to the officer, who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers verbatim.
(d) Schedule and Duration; Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination. (1) Any objection during a deposition shall be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner. An instruction not to answer may be made during a deposition only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation directed by the court, or to present a motion pursuant to subsection (d)(3) of this Rule.
(2) (A) Unless otherwise authorized by the court or stipulated by the parties, a deposition of a person other than a retained expert disclosed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) whose opinions may be offered at trial is limited to one day of 6 hours. Upon the motion of any party, the court may limit the time permitted for the conduct of a deposition to less than 6 hours, or may allow additional time if needed for a fair examination of the deponent and consistent with C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2), or if the deponent or another person impedes or delays the examination, or if other circumstances warrant. If the court finds such an impediment, delay, or other conduct that frustrates the fair examination of the deponent, it may impose upon the person responsible therefor an appropriate sanction, including the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by any parties as a result thereof.
(3) At any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion of any party or of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending or the court in the district where the deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting the examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition as provided in C.R.C.P. 26(c). If the order made terminates the examination, it may be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order. The provisions of C.R.C.P. 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
(e) Review by Witness; Changes; Signing. If requested by the deponent or a party before completion of the deposition, the deponent shall be notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available. Within 35 days of receipt of such notification the deponent shall review the transcript or recording and, if the deponent makes changes in the form or substance of the deposition, shall sign a statement reciting such changes and the deponent’s reasons for making them and send such statement to the officer. The officer shall indicate in the certificate prescribed by subsection (f)(1) of this rule whether any review was requested and, if so, shall append any changes made by the deponent.
(f) Certification and Filing by Officer; Exhibits; Copies; Notice of Filing. (1) The officer shall certify that the witness was duly sworn and that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. This certificate shall be set forth in writing and accompany the record of the deposition. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the officer shall securely seal the deposition in an envelope or package endorsed with the title of the action and marked “deposition of (here insert name of witness)” and shall promptly transmit it to the attorney who arranged for the transcript or recording. The receiving attorney shall store the deposition under conditions that will protect it against loss, destruction, tampering, or deterioration.
Documents and things produced for inspection during the examination of the witness shall, upon the request of a party, be marked for identification and annexed to and returned with the deposition and may be inspected and copied by any party, except that: if the person producing the materials desires to retain the originals, the person may
(A) offer copies to be marked for identification and annexed to the deposition and to serve thereafter as originals if the person affords to all parties fair opportunity to verify the copies by comparison with the originals, or
(B) offer the originals to be marked for identification, after giving each party an opportunity to inspect and copy them, in which event the materials may then be used in the same manner as if annexed to the deposition. Any party may move for an order that the original be annexed to and returned with the deposition to the court, pending final disposition of the case.
(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed by the parties, the officer shall retain stenographic notes of any deposition taken stenographically or a copy of the recording of any deposition taken by another method. Upon payment of reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a copy of the transcript or other recording of the deposition to any party or to the deponent.
(g) Failure to Attend or to Serve Subpoena; Expenses. (1) If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and another party attends in person or by attorney pursuant to the notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his attorney in so attending, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
(2) If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon him and the witness because of such failure does not attend, and if another party attends in person or by attorney because he expects the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay to such other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him and his attorney in so attending, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
HISTORY: Source: (a), (b)(1) to (b)(4), (b)(7), (c), (d), (e), and (f) amended and adopted April 14, 1994, effective January 1, 1995, for all cases filed on or after that date; committee comment approved June 10, 1994; (a)(1) corrected and effective January 9, 1995; entire rule corrected and effective June 4, 2001; (d) amended and adopted November 15, 2001, effective January 1, 2002; (e) amended and adopted December 14, 2011, effective January 1, 2012, for all cases pending on or filed on or after January 1, 2012, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 1(b); (d)(2) and comments amended and adopted May 28, 2015, effective July 1, 2015, for cases filed on or after July 1, 2015.
Cross references: For service of process, see C.R.C.P. 4; for subpoena for depositions, see C.R.C.P. 45(e); for sanctions for failing to make disclosure or cooperate in discovery, see C.R.C.P. 37; for production of documents and things, see C.R.C.P. 34; for protective orders, see C.R.C.P. 26(c); for award of expenses of motion, see C.R.C.P. 37(a)(4); for effect of errors and irregularities in depositions concerning completion and return thereof, see C.R.C.P. 32(d)(4).
 Revised C.R.C.P. 30 is patterned in part after Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 as amended in 1993 and 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.
 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 limitation 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.
 Language in C.R.C.P. 30(c) and C.R.C.P. 30(f)(1) differs slightly from the language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(f)(1) to facilitate the taking of telephone depositions by eliminating the requirement that the officer recording the deposition be the person who administers the oath or affirmation.
 Rule 30 is amended to reduce the time for ordinary depositions from 7 to 6 hours, so that they can be more easily accomplished in a normal business day.
I. General Consideration.
II. When May be Taken.
IV. Motion to Terminate or Limit.
V. Submission to Witness.
VI. Certification and Filing.
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION. Law reviews. For article, “Depositions of Parties on Oral Interrogatories, Within the State of Colorado”, see 10 Dicta 256 (1933). For article, “Use of Summary Judgments and the Discovery Procedure”, see 24 Dicta 193 (1947). For article, “Notes on Proposed Amendments to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 27 Dicta 165 (1950). For article, “Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 28 Dicta 242 (1951). 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, “One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals”, see 39 Dicta 133 (1962). 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, “A Deposition Primer, Part II: At the Deposition”, see 11 Colo. Law. 1215 (1982). For article, “Securing the Attendance of a Witness at a Deposition”, see 15 Colo. Law. 2000 (1986). For article, “Alternative Depositions: Practice and Procedure”, see 19 Colo. Law. 57 (1990). For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association on Use of Subpoenas in Civil Proceedings, see 19 Colo. Law. 1556 (1990). For article, “Organizational Avatars: Preparing CRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition Witnesses”, see 43 Colo. Law. 39 (December 2014).
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).
Rules of civil procedure sanction use of all discovery methods and the frequency of use of these methods should not be limited unless there is a showing of good cause based on the particular circumstances of the case. Sanchez v. District Court, 624 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1981).
Civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. Based on §§16-8-115 to 16-8-117 and on the special nonadversary nature of a release inquiry, the participants in release proceedings do not have the broad right of discovery as provided in the rules of civil procedure. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976).
Under C.R.C.P. 81(a), the procedure in release hearings under § 16-8-115 is so inconsistent and in conflict with the rules of civil procedure as to make civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976).
It is in the trial court’s discretion whether a video deposition will be ordered absent agreement between the parties. Such a deposition, while it may be desirable under certain circumstances, is a luxury not a necessity. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. v. Voelker, 859 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1993).
When choosing a subsection (b)(6) designee, companies have a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons and to prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter. The company should, if necessary, prepare deponents by having them review prior fact witness deposition testimony as well as documents and deposition exhibits. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. D&S Landscaping, LLC, 215 P.3d 1163 (Colo. App. 2008).
Allowing a company to designate a witness under subsection (b)(6) who is unprepared or not knowledgeable would simply defeat the purpose of the rule and sandbag the opposition. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. D&S Landscaping, LLC, 215 P.3d 1163 (Colo. App. 2008).
Where a corporation designates a deponent pursuant to subsection (b)(6) who is unable to answer all the questions specified in the notice, a court may issue sanctions for failure to appear under C.R.C.P. 37. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. D&S Landscaping, LLC, 215 P.3d 1163 (Colo. App. 2008).
Nothing in the rule or its interpretation suggests that persons who are designated and testify under subsection (b)(6) will not bind their corporate principal. Nothing in the rule precludes a principal from offering contrary or clarifying evidence where its designee has made an error or has no knowledge of a matter. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. D&S Landscaping, LLC, 215 P.3d 1163 (Colo. App. 2008).
A corporation should be excused from sanctions and granted a protective order where it had no means available to prepare a subsection (b)(6) designee. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. D&S Landscaping, LLC, 215 P.3d 1163 (Colo. App. 2008).
Not being listed under section (b)(6) does not disqualify a person from testifying, but rather being listed under section (b)(6) mandates that the witness’s testimony include certain subject matter and knowledge. Where county produced undesignated witnesses who were knowledgeable both as to the facts regarding the county and as to those at issue at trial, and defendant was aware of the witnesses and deposed them, trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing their testimony. Camp Bird Colo., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Ouray, 215 P.3d 1277 (Colo. App. 2009).
Applied in Seymour v. District Court, 196 Colo. 102, 581 P.2d 302 (1978); Peoples Natural Gas Div. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 626 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1981); Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981); Falzon v. Home Ins. Co., 661 P.2d 696 (Colo. App. 1982); Black ex rel. Bayless v. Cullar, 665 P.2d 1029 (Colo. App. 1983).
II. WHEN MAY BE TAKEN. While this rule allows the taking of the deposition of “any person”, a court in a “habeas corpus” matter may properly restrict the taking of a deposition where its use relates not to the narrow issues of habeas corpus, but to broad range issues not relevant in a habeas corpus determination. Hithe v. Nelson, 172 Colo. 179, 471 P.2d 596 (1970).
III. NOTICE. Law reviews. For article, “In Defense of H.B. 109 — Re-serving Notice Before a Witness’s Deposition May Be Taken”, see 22 Dicta 152 (1945).
Section (b)(4) is identical to its federal counterpart F.R.C.P. 30(b)(4). Sanchez v. District Court, 624 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1981).
Purpose of section (b)(4) is to facilitate less expensive procedures as an alternative to the high cost of stenographic recording. Sanchez v. District Court, 624 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1981).
Motion and notice for which provision is made in this rule must be made and served prior to the time specified in the notice for the taking of the deposition. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. District Court, 126 Colo. 217, 247 P.2d 903 (1952).
There was no “reasonable notice” within the meaning of this rule where the record disclosed that the party was given three days notice that the depositions were to be taken, the notice was served in Colorado, and the depositions were taken in Los Angeles. Nielsen v. Nielsen, 111 Colo. 344, 141 P.2d 415 (1943).
If, for good cause, a deposition should be taken in some place other than that mentioned in the notice, this matter should be called to the attention of the trial court by a motion filed and service thereof seasonably made on opposing counsel; otherwise, such objection is waived, and the place designated in the notice is definitely and finally fixed. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. District Court, 126 Colo. 217, 247 P.2d 903 (1952).
Service of notice to take deposition on a party’s attorney is sufficient notice pursuant to C.R.C.P. 5(b)(1). Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. District Court, 126 Colo. 217, 247 P.2d 903 (1952).
A party is not entitled to a subpoena nor to a per diem allowance or mileage when he is noticed to appear for the taking of his deposition. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. District Court, 126 Colo. 217, 247 P.2d 903 (1952).
Court has discretion in determining assessment of stenographic expense as cost. There is no provision authorizing the assessment, as costs, of stenographic expense incurred in the taking of a deposition for purposes of discovery, but if the testimony of the person whose deposition is taken is not available at the trial, and the deposition is offered in lieu thereof, then the court would have discretion in determining whether the expense of procuring the deposition should be assessed as costs against the losing party. Morris v. Redak, 124 Colo. 27, 234 P.2d 908 (1951).
Governmental officials of foreign state cannot be compelled to appear in Colorado to take depositions. Where the attorney general and tax commissioner of another state had been ordered to appear in Colorado for the purpose of taking depositions, the court could not compel them to so appear, and this fact is true even though the foreign state had brought the action in which defendant sought these depositions, inasmuch as no state court or government has authority beyond its own borders, each state being sovereign as to its own territory and those residing therein; such recognition as is given Colorado laws or court orders by other states must be based solely upon full faith and credit, comity, contract due to uniform acts, or compact. Minnesota ex rel. Minnesota Att’y Gen. v. District Court, 155 Colo. 521, 395 P.2d 601 (1964).
Showing of indigency unnecessary for application of section (b)(4) to inexpensive mode of deposition discovery. Application of section (b)(4) of this rule to an inexpensive mode of deposition discovery should not be conditioned on a showing of indigency, a showing of financial need, or economic disparity between the parties. Sanchez v. District Court, 624 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1981).
Exercise of discretion in ruling on discovery motion for tape recorded depositions should be limited to considerations of accuracy and trustworthiness with respect to the procedures and conditions to be followed in the recording, transcription, and filing of the depositions. Sanchez v. District Court, 624 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1981).
Trial judge may properly deny motion for tape recorded depositions where the objecting party shows that there exists a potential for abuse or harassment of a witness or party or where the objecting party otherwise establishes a bona fide claim for protective orders under C.R.C.P. 26(c). Sanchez v. District Court, 624 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1981).
IV. MOTION TO TERMINATE OR LIMIT. The taking of a deposition is not precluded by an application for writ of prohibition where an order to show cause is issued pursuant thereto by the supreme court; rather, only proceedings in the trial court are suspended by such an order, and not those in preparation of trial. And where the case is still pending and undetermined, an application for a writ of prohibition against the taking of a deposition would be denied as premature. Cox v. District Court, 129 Colo. 99, 267 P.2d 656 (1954).
Party desiring to protect trade secrets entitled to protective order. Taken together, section (d) of this rule and C.R.C.P. 26 establish that a party desiring to protect trade secrets is entitled to a protective order upon a showing of good cause. Curtis, Inc. v. District Court, 186 Colo. 226, 526 P.2d 1335 (1974).
V. SUBMISSION TO WITNESS. Annotator’s note. Since section (e) of this rule is similar to § 378 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, which was supplanted by the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1941, relevant cases construing this section have been included in the annotations to this rule.
Purpose of section (e), which requires submission of the deposition to the witness for examination, correction, and signature, is to provide verification of the deposition’s content in order that the writing may be introduced as evidence of the witness’s own words. Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Pueblo Gas & Fuel Co., 33 Colo. App. 92, 519 P.2d 1201 (1973).
Object of reading deposition to witness is to give opportunity to correct. The object of the requirement that the interrogatories and answers submitted to the witness on the taking of his deposition should be first carefully read to him before he signed is that the witness might know what the scrivener had written down, and he might, before his deposition is complete, have an opportunity to correct any errors or inaccuracies of statement which might have occurred. Cheney v. Woodworth, 13 Colo. App. 176, 56 P. 979 (1899).
The requirement that deposition be signed by witness can be waived by stipulation of counsel. Chipley v. Green, 7 Colo. App. 25, 42 P. 493 (1895).
Where parties stipulated with respect to the taking of a deposition that “the caption and all formalities are expressly waived”, it was held that an irregularity as to the signature was waived by this stipulation. Chipley v. Green, 7 Colo. App. 25, 42 P. 493 (1895).
Section (e) inapplicable. Where proof of a contradictory statement was elicited from the mouth of the witness and not by introduction of the deposition into evidence, the safeguards for accuracy of the deposition as evidence, which are embodied in section (e), were inapplicable. Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Pueblo Gas & Fuel Co., 33 Colo. App. 92, 519 P.2d 1201 (1973).
VI. CERTIFICATION AND FILING. This rule sets forth the mechanics applicable to certifying and filing depositions. Appelhans v. Kirkwood, 148 Colo. 92, 365 P.2d 233 (1961).
After correction of the deposition and after it is signed, or following a refusal to sign it, the deposition is to be delivered to the officer who seals it promptly and files it with the court in which the action is pending. Appelhans v. Kirkwood, 148 Colo. 92, 365 P.2d 233 (1961).
Officer’s certificate is not required to state that deposition was “carefully” read to witness before signing. The requirement that in taking depositions the interrogatories and answers should be carefully read to the witness before signing does not require the certificate of the officer to state that they were “carefully” read to the witness before signing. A certificate that certified simply that the deposition was read to the witness before signing is sufficient, as it would be presumed that it was read with that care required. Cheney v. Woodworth, 13 Colo. App. 176, 56 P. 979 (1899) (decided under § 378 of the former code of civil procedure, which was replaced by rules of civil procedure in 1941).
Sham affidavit doctrine permits a court under certain circumstances to disregard an affidavit submitted by a party in response to a summary judgment motion where that affidavit contradicts the party’s previous sworn deposition testimony. Luttgen v. Fischer, 107 P.3d 1152 (Colo. App. 2005).
Contradictory affidavits should be considered in light of totality of the circumstances test. Affidavit that directly contradicts affiant’s own earlier deposition testimony can be rejected as sham affidavit only if it fails to include an explanation for the contradiction that could be found credible by a reasonable jury. This determination cannot be limited to any set of factors, but must be considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, and such determination is a matter of law to be reviewed de novo. Andersen v. Lindenbaum, 160 P.3d 237 (Colo. 2007).
Where deposition was taken but not subscribed, certified, or filed pursuant to this rule, and was for that reason suppressed by the trial court notwithstanding agreement of counsel that it might be admitted for a limited purpose, such ruling, while erroneous, was not prejudicial. Appelhans v. Kirkwood, 148 Colo. 92, 365 P.2d 233 (1961).
The regular terms of office of all nonpartisan officers elected at regular elections shall commence at the next meeting of the governing body following the date of the election, but no later than thirty days following the survey of returns and upon the signing of an oath and posting of a bond, where required, unless otherwise provided by law. If the election is cancelled in whole or in part pursuant to section 1-5-208 (1.5), then the regular term of office of a nonpartisan officer shall commence at the next meeting of the governing body following the date of the regular election, but no later than thirty days following the date of the regular election and upon the signing of an oath and posting of a bond, where required, unless otherwise provided by law.
HISTORY: Source: L. 92: Entire article R&RE, p. 636, § 1, effective January 1, 1993.L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 1397, § 11, effective July 1.L. 94: Entire section amended, p. 1151, § 5, effective July 1.L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 1001, § 1, effective August 8.