Title: State of Minnesota v. District Court
Citation: 395 P.2d 601
Docket Number: 21395
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 1964

395 P.2d 601 (1964) STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF EL PASO and State of Colorado and The Honorable David W. Enoch, District Judge, Respondents. No. 21395. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. October 5, 1964. Gallagher &amp; Wills, Colorado Springs, for petitioner. Rector &amp; Kane, Colorado Springs, for respondents. MOORE, Justice. This is an original proceeding commenced in this court by the State of Minnesota which filed a petition for issuance of rule directed to the above named respondents, requiring them to show cause why they should not be prohibited from enforcement of an order entered by them in a case pending in the district court of El Paso county. The said order purported to require the appearance in Colorado of a resident of Minnesota for the purpose of taking a deposition under Rule 30(a) and (b) R.C.P.Colo. Upon consideration of this petition a rule to show cause issued and respondents have answered and filed their brief in which it is urged that the rule be discharged. The background for this proceeding is as follows: The State of Minnesota filed an action in the district court of El Paso county against one William T. Phillips in which it sought judgment for $1022.37 allegedly due Minnesota on account of unpaid income taxes. Counsel representing Phillips in that action served a notice upon counsel for Minnesota that the depositions of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota and the Tax Commissioner for that state would be taken at the district court of El Paso county on April 24, 1964. April 1, 1964, Minnesota filed its "Motion for Protection of Parties Under Rule 30 (b)." This motion, omitting the caption, reads as follows: *602 The final order of the district court of El Paso county which was entered following a hearing was as follows: The instant action was thereafter commenced to prevent enforcement of the above order. The argument advanced in this court by counsel for Minnesota is presented under four captions. We need consider but two of the points urged, viz.: In answer to these points it is argued by counsel for respondents that Rule 26(d) (2) R.C.P.Colo., provides that: He argues that: This court has had occasion to consider a similar controversy in Solliday v. District Court of the City and County of Denver, et al., 135 Colo. 489, 313 P.2d 1000. From the opinion in that case we quote, inter alia, the following: "3. Rule 45, R.C.P. relating to the `Subpoena' power as applied to nonresidents not parties to an action in Colorado and not served in Colorado is, where applicable, also subject to the implied limitations of mutual compact or uniform act. Further, that part of Rule 45(d) (2) above quoted relating to nonresidents is limited solely to those persons who are either parties to the action or witnesses therein, both of which classes of nonresidents must first have been properly served in the action to subject them to the jurisdiction of the *603 court, or have waived or consented to the jurisdiction of the Colorado court." The above quoted language is applicable to the instant case. Other remedies are available to William T. Phillips, including the right to take the deposition of any individual witness upon written interrogatories; and to serve interrogatories addressed directly to the plaintiff in the action, as provided for in Rule 33, R.C.P.Colo. The rule is made absolute. PRINGLE, J., not participating.