Laserfiche WebLink
District Court, Water Division 4, Colorado <br />Case No. 02CW38; Application of C3pper Gunnison River Watea Conservancy District, m Gunnison County, Colorado <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District's Response to Motion in Limme <br />Page3of6 <br />made available to the CWCB and Engineers. The portion of the Hearing transcript <br />that covers Mr. Kuhn's testimony cavers less than ZO pages. The information <br />provided by the River District was sufficient to inform the CWCB and Engineers of <br />the substance of and bases for Mr. Kuhn's testimony. <br />5. Furtherxnore, the CWCB and Engineers cannot in good faith claim surprise aboutthe <br />substance of Mr. Kuhn's anticipated testimony. The River Distrid timely-filed its <br />Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure on June 23, 2003, in accordance with the Case Management <br />Order. Mr. Kuhn was clearly identified in that disclosure as the only expeR witness <br />anticipated to be called by the River District. The CWCB and Engineers have been <br />aware of the River District's intent to call Mr. Kuhn as an expert for more than two <br />months but they waited to raise any objection to W. Kuhn's testimony as an expert <br />until the brink of trial. <br />6. Discovery rules should be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of dis covery, <br />which is to eliminate surprise at trial, discover relevant evidence, simplify the issues, <br />promote efficient settlement of the case, and seek truth. Bond v. District Court, 682 <br />P.2d 33, 40 (Colo. 1984); Corbetta v. Albertson's, Inc., 975 P.2d 718, 720 (Colo. <br />1999). Notably, the CWCB and Engineas have not alleged in this case that they <br />will be surprised by Mr. Kuhn's anticipated testimony. The substance of Mr. Kuhn's <br />anticipated testimony has been clearly known by the CWCB and Engineers for more <br />than one year (since the CWCB Hearing) and was confirmed by the River District's <br />Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosure filed more than two and one-half months ago. If the CWCB <br />and Engineers desired further elaboration, they had a full and fairopporhmity to seek <br />additional information through any number of ineans, including written or oral <br />discovery. They chose not to do so, and they should not be rewarded for that <br />decision now by the exclusion of expert testimony pertinazt to disputed matteis in <br />this case. <br />7. The Court should fmd that the River District's disclosure of Mr. Kuhn's testimony <br />complies with C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(In because the River District disclosed the <br />required information and satisfied the purpose and spirit of the discovery rules. <br />B. Mr. Kuhn's Testimony is Within the Proper Scope of Ezpert Testimony Under <br />CRE 702. <br />The CWCB and Engineers azgue in the Motion in Limine that Mr. Kuhn's expert <br />testimony should be excluded becauseit concerns the legal defuutions of"maximum <br />utilization" and "compact development."