Opinion ID: 2823817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comparison of C.R.C.P. 16 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16

Text: Â¶19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â While many revised Colorado Rules are patterned from Federal Rules, revised C.R.C.P. 16 contains critical differences from Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. See C.R.C.P. 16, Comm. Cmt., History and Philosophy (âRevisions to Rules 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37 are patterned after December 1, 1993, revisions to Federal Rules of the same number, but are not in all respects identical.â). When a Colorado Rule is modeled on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, we look to federal authority for guidance in construing theÂ Colorado rule. Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81, 86 (Colo. 2002); see, e.g., United Bank of Denver Natâl Assân v. Shavlik, 541 P.2d 317, 318 (Colo. 1975) (deeming the authority and commentators on Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 to be persuasive because C.R.C.P. 14 is virtually identical). Â¶20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2) states, in relevant part: Matters for Consideration. At any pretrial conference, the court mayÂ consider and take appropriate action on the following matters: (A) formulating and simplifying the issues, and eliminating frivolous claims or defenses; . . . . (L) adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties,Â difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems; . . . . (P) facilitating in other ways the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action. (Emphasis added.) Â¶21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â By comparison, C.R.C.P. 16 does not include the Federal Rule provisions: (c) Modified Case Management Order. Any of the provisions of section (b) of this Rule may be modified by the entry of a Modified Case Management Order pursuant to this section and section (d) of this Rule. If a trial is set to commence less than 182 days (26 weeks) after the at-issue date as defined in C.R.C.P. 16(b)(1), and if a timely request for a modified case management order is made by any party, the case management order shall be modified to allow the parties an appropriate amount of time to meet case management deadlines, including discovery, expert disclosures, and the filing of summary judgment motions. The amounts of time allowed shall be within the discretion of the court on a case-by-case basis. . . . . (2) Disputed Motions for Modified Case Management Orders. If any party wishes to move for a Modified Case Management Order, lead counsel and any unrepresented parties shall confer and cooperate in the development of a proposed Modified Case Management Order. A motion for a Modified Case Management Order and one form of the proposedÂ Order shall be filed no later than 42 days after the case is at issue. To the extent possible, counsel and any unrepresented parties shall agree to the contents of the proposed Modified Case Management Order but any matter upon which all parties cannot agree shall be designated as âdisputedâ in the proposed Modified Case Management Order. The proposed Order shall contain specific alternate provisions upon which agreement could not be reached and shall be supported by specific showing of good cause for each modification sought including, where applicable, the grounds for good cause pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(b)(2). Such motion only needs to set forth the proposed provisions which would be changed from the presumptive case management Order set forth in section (b) of this Rule. The motion for a modified case management order shall be signed by lead counsel and any unrepresented parties, or shall contain a statement as to why it is not so signed. Â¶22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Thus, in revising C.R.C.P. 16 in 2002, we did not adopt a counterpart to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c), which explicitly grants trial courts substantial discretion to adopt procedures to streamline complex litigation in its early stages, â[a]t any pretrial conference.â Of importance here, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L) authorizes trial courts to âconsider and take appropriate actionâ by âadopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems.â In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(A) grants trial courts authority to âformulat[e] and simplify[] the issues, and eliminat[e] frivolous claims or defenses.â More generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(P) authorizes trial courts to âfacilitat[e] in other ways the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.â Â¶23Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The language of C.R.C.P. 16 is markedly different from the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. On its face, C.R.C.P. 16 does not contain a grant of authority for complex cases or otherwise afford trial courts the authority to require a plaintiff to make a primaÂ facie showing before the plaintiff fully exercises discovery rights under the Colorado Rules. Instead, C.R.C.P. 16 primarily addresses basic scheduling matters. For instance, C.R.C.P. 16(b) creates a timeline of key trial-related events applicable to presumptive case management orders, including the âat issue dateâ for purposes of calculating deadlines; âmeet and conferâ date for counsel; trial setting; service of C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures; disclosure of expert testimony in accordance with C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2); timing of initial settlement discussions; deadlines for joining additional parties, amending pleadings, and filing pretrial motions; and discovery schedule. C.R.C.P. 16(c) accords the parties and the trial court flexibility to modify the presumptive order upon a showing of good cause âto allow the parties an appropriate amount of time to meet case management deadlines, including discovery, expert disclosures, and the filing of summary judgment motions.â Rule 16(c) concludes by stating that â[t]he amounts of time allowed shall be within the discretion of the court on a case-by-case basisââ indicating that any modifications would relate to time and schedule. See C.R.C.P. 16(c) (emphasis added). Â¶24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Neither subsection 16(b) nor 16(c) of our rules addresses a partyâs disclosure or discovery obligations beyond establishing deadlines and referencing C.R.C.P. 26, which contains general provisions governing discovery and disclosure. Comments to the revised Rule 16 explain that its purpose is âto accomplish early purposeful and reasonably economical management of cases by the parties with court supervision,â as well as âto insure that only appropriate discovery is conducted and to carefully plan for and conduct an efficient and expeditious trial.â C.R.C.P. 16, Comm. Cmt., Operation;Â see also id. (explaining that Rule 16 was amended to âemphasize and foster professionalism and to de-emphasize sanctions for non-complianceâ). In the context of explaining Rule 16âs goal of eliminating ââhide-the-ballâ and âhardballâ tacticsâ and to curtail abuses of the rules, the comments emphasize that trial judges are expected to âassertively lead the management of cases to ensure that justice is served.â Id. Â¶25Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Despite our exclusion of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c) language that provides authority for Lone Pine orders, Antero Resources argues that revised C.R.C.P. 16 allows a Colorado court to weed out and dismiss claims at an early stage of litigation under its case management authority before full discovery. It bases this contention not on the language of our rule but on a portion of the comment reciting that a purpose of the revised rule is to accomplish âearly purposeful and reasonably economical management of cases.â However, this goal in no way substitutes for the kind of explicit authorization the federal rules provide for issuance of Lone Pine orders. In Colorado, case management orders under our Rule 16, whether presumptive or modified, are instruments courts employ to streamline litigation and ensure a just progression of a case. We amended the rule to âemphasize and foster professionalism and to de-emphasize sanctions for non-compliance,â purposefully leaving adequate enforcement provisions in place. C.R.C.P. 16, Comm. Cmt., Operation. Indeed, an additional stated purpose of C.R.C.P. 16 is âto . . . encourage[] . . . cooperation among counsel and parties to facilitate disclosure, discovery, pretrial and trial procedures.â C.R.C.P. 16(a). Â¶26Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Together with amended Rule 26, our amended Rule 16 provides a tool for the court to manage discovery while efficiently advancing the litigation toward resolution,Â reflecting the development away from the seemingly unrestricted discovery that courts often endorsed in the past. Rule 16 does not, however, authorize a trial court to condition discovery upon the plaintiff establishing a prima facie case. In sum, when revising Rule 16 in 2002, we did not pattern our rule on Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c), and we decline to invoke a rule comment as authority for issuance of Lone Pine orders. 4