Laserfiche WebLink
three full days that Mr. Knox has arranged his schedule to make himself available. Rather <br />than attempting to efficiently arrange their own trial schedule, or to attempt to cooperate with <br />the State, applicant's counsel has instead proposed that both sides agree to read Mr. Knox's <br />deposition testimony into the record in lieu of live testimony. Applicant's proposal thus <br />would preclude the State from questioning one of its own designated expert witnesses, and <br />the State Engineer's Office's designated representative. Obviously, the State cannot agree to <br />this proposal. <br />8. Despite the foregoing, applicants' counsel has now amended its subpoena to <br />requiring Mr. Knox's presence for all seven days of trial, despite the one -half to one hour of <br />time per trial anticipated by the Trial Management Orders. (Please see Amended Subpoena, <br />attached hereto as Exhibit E). (The State received the amended subpoena on April 22, 2002, <br />although the signature block is dated April 11, 2002.) <br />H. LEGAL ARGUMENT <br />9. Pursuant to Rule 45, C.R.C.P., the Court may, upon timely motion, "quash or <br />modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive." <br />10. Applicants' seven -day subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive because it <br />requires a State official's presence at trial far beyond the anticipated time for testimony. 'Mr. <br />Knox has unavoidable previous engagements requiring his personal presence. <br />Notwithstanding these commitments, Mr. Knox has arranged his schedule to make himself <br />available for three days in order to accommodate the Applicants' anticipated two hours of <br />testimony. Yet the Applicants' subpoena would require Mr. Knox to attend the trial for seven <br />full days in order to provide a maximum of two hours of testimony. <br />11. In addition, the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive because the <br />subpoena would prevent Mr. Knox from fulfilling his duties of representing the State of <br />Colorado in interstate compact matters. The subpoena thus constitutes a use of State time <br />which is not in the best interest of the State of Colorado, in violation of the State's personnel <br />rules. 4 CCR 801 -1, Rule 8 -1 -5 (1 -86) (requiring state employees to protect and conserve <br />state property, including use of state time). <br />12. This Court should not sanction the Applicant's counsel's inability to efficiently <br />arrange their trial schedule by allowing them to subpoena Mr. Knox for seven full days for a <br />maximum of two hours of testimony. Applicants' request has no purpose other than to <br />oppress Mr. Knox and prevent him from performing his duties. Accordingly, the State <br />requests that the Court quash the Applicant's subpoena, or modify the subpoena to allow Mr. <br />Knox to appear on May 6, 8, 9, and May 13 and 14, 2002. These five days should be more <br />than sufficient to allow Mr. Knox to provide two hours of testimony. <br />3 <br />