My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL46010
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL46010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:16:41 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 2:15:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
Motion for Protective Order and for Legal Representation
From
AGO
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
Cessation of Operations
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.