Colorado § 13-90-210 - Compensation.

§ 13-90-210. Compensation.

Per the funding available to the division, a qualified auxiliary services provider provided pursuant to section 13-90-204 shall be compensated for their services, including waiting time and necessary travel and subsistence expenses. The amount of compensation shall be based on a fee schedule for qualified auxiliary services providers established by the division.

Source: L. 87: Entire part R&RE, p. 572, § 1, effective April 23. L. 2006: Entire section amended, p. 1090, § 9, effective May 25. L. 2025: Entire section amended, (HB 25-1154), ch. 230, p. 1085, § 22, effective May 22.

13-90.5 ARTICLE 90.5

Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act

13-90.5-101. Short title.

13-90.5-102. Definitions.

13-90.5-103. Issuance of subpoena.

13-90.5-104. Service of subpoena.

13-90.5-105. Deposition, production, and inspection.

13-90.5-106. Application to court.

13-90.5-107. Uniformity of application and construction.

PREFATORY NOTE

1. History of Uniform Acts

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has twice promulgated acts dealing with interstate discovery procedures.

In 1920, the Uniform Foreign Depositions Act was adopted by NCCUSL. The pertinent section of that act provides:

Whenever any mandate, writ or commission is issued from any court of record in any foreign jurisdiction, or whenever upon notice or agreement it is required to take the testimony of a witness in this state, the witness may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same process as employed for taking testimony in matters pending in the courts of this state.

The UFDA was originally adopted in 13 states. The states and territories which currently have the act include Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming, and the Virgin Islands.

In 1962, the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act was adopted by NCCUSL. The act was designed to supercede any previous interstate jurisdiction acts, including the UFDA, and was more extensive than the UFDA, having provisions on personal jurisdiction, service methods, deposition methods, and other topics. Section 3.02(a) of the act provides:

[A court][The _____ court] of this state may order a person who is domiciled or is found within this state to give his testimony or statement or to produce documents or other things for use in a proceeding in a tribunal outside this state. The order may be made upon the application of any interested person or in response to a letter rogatory and may prescribe the practice and procedure, which may be wholly or in part the practice and procedure of the tribunal outside this state, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the documents or other things. To the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the practice and procedure shall be in accordance with that of the court of this state issuing the order. The order may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or document or other thing produced, before a person appointed by the court. The person appointed shall have power to administer any necessary oath.

The UIIPA was originally adopted by 6 states. The states, districts, and territories which currently have the act include Arkansas, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands.

In 1977 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws withdrew the UIIPA from recommendation "due to its being obsolete." Until now, no other uniform act for interstate depositions has been proposed.

2. Common issues

While every state has a rule governing foreign depositions, those rules are hardly uniform. These differences are extensively detailed in Interstate Deposition Statutes: Survey and Analysis, 11 U. Balt. L. Rev 1, 1981. Some of the more important differences among the various states are the following:

a. In what kind of proceeding may depositions be taken?

Many states restrict depositions to those that will be used in the "courts" or "judicial proceedings" of the other state. Some states allow depositions for any "proceeding." The UFDA and UIIPA take a similar approach.

b. Who may seek depositions?

A few states limit discovery to only the parties in the action or proceeding. Other states simply use the term "party" without any further qualifier, which may be interpreted broadly to include any interested party. Still other states expressly allow any person who would have the power to take a deposition in the trial state to take a deposition in the discovery state. The UIIPA allows any "interested party" to seek discovery. The UFDA does not state who may seek discovery.

c. What matters can be covered in a subpoena?

The UFDA expressly applies only to the "testimony" of witnesses. The UIIPA expressly applies to "testimony or documents or other things." Several states follow the UIIPA approach, while others seem to limit production to documents but not physical things, and still others are silent on the subject, although some of those states recognize that the power to produce documents is implicit. Rule 45 of the FRCP is more explicit, and provides that a subpoena may be issued to a witness "to attend and give testimony or to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents or tangible things in the possession, custody or control of that person, or to permit inspection of premises..."

d. What is the procedure for obtaining a deposition subpoena?

Under the UFDA, a party must file the same notice of deposition that would be used in the trial state and then serve the witness with a subpoena under the law of the trial state. If a motion to compel is necessary, it must be filed in the discovery state (the deponent's home court). Other states require that a notice of deposition be shown to a clerk or judge in the discovery state, after which a subpoena will automatically issue. Still other states require a letter rogatory requesting the trial state to issue a subpoena. Under the UIIPA, either an application or letter rogatory is required. About 20 states require an attorney in the discovery state to file a miscellaneous action to establish jurisdiction over the witness so that the witness can then be subpoenaed.

e. What is the procedure for serving a deposition subpoena?

The UFDA provides that the witness "may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same process and proceeding as may be employed for the purpose of taking testimony in proceedings pending in this state." The UIIPA provides that methods of service includes service "in the manner prescribed by the law of the place in which the service is made for service in that place in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction." State rules usually follow the procedure of the UFDA and UIIPA.

f. Which jurisdiction has power to enforce or quash a subpoena?

Most states give the discovery state power to issue, refuse to issue, or quash a subpoena.

g. Where can the deponent be deposed?

Some states limit the place where a deposition can be taken to the discovery state, and some limit it to the deponent's home county. The UFDA and UIIPA are silent on this issue.

h. What witness fees are required?

A few states require the payment of witness fees. While most states are silent on the issue, it is probably assumed that the witness fee rules generally existing in the discovery state apply. These usually include fees and mileage, and are usually required to be paid at the time the witness testifies.

i. Which jurisdiction's discovery procedure applies?

A significant issue is whether the trial state's or discovery state's discovery procedure controls, and on what issues. The general Restatement rule is that the forum state's (the discovery state's) procedure applies. The UIIPA, as well as many states, provides that the discovery state can use the procedure of either the trial or discovery state, with a presumption for the procedure of the discovery state. Some states reverse this presumption, while others are unclear, and still others are silent on the issue.

Another significant issue is whether the trial state's or discovery state's courts can issue protective orders. Both states have interests: the trial state's courts have an interest in protecting witnesses and litigants from improper practices, and the discovery state's courts have an obvious interest in protecting its residents from unreasonable and overly burdensome discovery requests. Most states expressly or implicitly allow the discovery state's courts to issue protective orders.

j. Which jurisdiction's evidence law applies?

Evidentiary disputes usually center on relevance and privilege issues. Most states indicate that the discovery state should rule on all relevance issues. Other states indicate that relevance issues should be resolved before a subpoena issues, which would necessarily mean that such issues be decided by the trial state. If the discovery state makes such determinations, it is unclear which state's evidence law should apply (if there is a difference).

Perhaps the most difficult issues are whether the trial state or discovery state should determine issues of privilege, and which state's privilege law will apply. Here both jurisdictions have important interests: the trial state has an interest in obtaining all information relevant to the lawsuit consistent with its laws, while the discovery state has an interest in protecting its residents from intrusive foreign laws. The Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws provides that the state which has the "most significant relationship" to the communication at issue applies its laws. The issue is further compounded by the general rule that once the privilege is waived, it is generally waived. If the deponent does not object at the deposition and testifies about privileged communications, the privilege will usually be waived.

3. This act

A uniform act needs to set forth a procedure that can be easily and efficiently followed, that has a minimum of judicial oversight and intervention, that is cost-effective for the litigants, and is fair to the deponents. And it should be patterned after Rule 45 of the FRCP, which appears to be universally admired by civil litigators for its simplicity and efficiency.

The Drafting Committee believes that the proposed uniform act meets these requirements, should be supported by the various constituencies that have an interest in how interstate discovery is conducted in state courts, and should be adopted by most of the states. The act is simple and efficient: it establishes a simple clerical procedure under which a trial state subpoena can be used to issue a discovery state subpoena. The act has minimal judicial oversight: it eliminates the need for obtaining a commission, letters rogatory, filing a miscellaneous action, or other preliminary steps before obtaining a subpoena in the discovery state. The act is cost effective: it eliminates the need to obtain local counsel in the discovery state to obtain an enforceable subpoena. And the act is fair to deponents: it provides that motions brought to enforce, quash, or modify a subpoena, or for protective orders, shall be brought in the discovery state and will be governed by the discovery state's laws.