Laserfiche WebLink
8. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-1-I 14(3)(a) (2005), an employee of the CDPHE is prohibited <br />from performing "any work, labor or other services other than the duties assigned to him by or <br />on behalf of the department during the hours such officer or employee is regularly employed by <br />the department." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2i-1-114(3)(a) (2005). <br />9. Further, expert witnesses should not be compelled to testify because such testimony is a <br />matter of contract. Young v. U.S., 1&'1 F.R.D. 344 (W.D. Tex 1997), citing Karp v. Cooley, 349 <br />F. Supp. 827 (S.D. Tex. 1972). Compelling expert opinion amounts to involuntary servitude. <br />State employees should not be compelled to give expert testimony against their will, particulazly <br />when the litigants can hire their own experts to testify as to the same issues. Ondis v. Pion, 497 <br />A.2d 13, 18 (R.I. 1985); Mason v. Robinson, 340 N.W.2d 236, 242 (Iowa 1983); Shelby County <br />v. Kingsway Greens of America, Inc., 706 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tenn. App. 1985). <br />(0. The federal roles of civil procedure also provide for the protection of privileged <br />information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A). <br />1 L In addition to protecting privileged attorney-client information, CDPHE and CDMG seek <br />to protect deliberative process information as privileged. The deliberative process privilege is <br />recognized in both state and federal law. City of Colorado Sprines v. White, 967 P.2d 1042 <br />(Colo. 1998); EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973); Rodgers v. HXatt, 91 F.R.D. 399 (D. Colo. <br />1980). Thus, although the state employees are available to provide relevant factual testimony, <br />they should not be examined on privileged matters, inchiding deliberative process privileges. <br />12. Finally, CDPHE and CDMG request that the state employees be allowed to have legal <br />representation during their testimony in order to protect the rights and privileges of the State of <br />Colorado, CDPHE, and CDMG. <br />4 <br />