Opinion ID: 1187555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the discovery rulings.

Text: A party is entitled to discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action .... C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). Even information not admissible in evidence is discoverable if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ibid. Ordinarily, pretrial discovery rulings are within the broad discretion of the trial court. Phillips v. District Court, Colo., 573 P.2d 553, 555 (1978). But a writ of mandamus will issue to insure the full observance of the rules of civil procedure, ... [1] upon a showing that judicial discretion has been abused and that damage to the party could not be corrected on appeal. Seymour v. District Court, Colo., 581 P.2d 302, 304 (1978). By refusing to grant discovery that was reasonably calculated to lead . . . to admissible evidence, the district judge in effect refused to enforce the plain mandate of Rule 26(b)(1). Thus the issue is whether this deviation by the trial court from the normal rule amounted to an abuse of discretion serious enough to invoke this court's mandamus power. Evidence concerning the post-dissolution value and use of assets, various reinvestments derived from those assets, and the husband's income and expendituresalbeit possibly inadmissible in evidenceclearly was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the statutes require the court to consider (t)he economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the division of property is to become effective, [2] and to ascertain the value of the property set apart to each spouse [3] in making a fair division of marital property. The petitioner sought to discover evidence of the husband's current economic circumstances and to obtain information to be used in contesting the husband's separate property claims. Without such evidence, the district court may not be able to fulfill its statutory mandate to consider the respective economic circumstances of the spouses and the value of their separate properties. More importantly, the trial court's refusal to permit discovery of the husband's post-dissolution income, expenditures and assets has impaired or precluded the wife's ability to trace marital assets and contest the husband's claim that certain properties are his separate property. Discovery of how the husband managed and used marital assets and income held under his exclusive control also should be permitted. The district court reserved until trial its ruling on whether that evidence would be admissible. But since such evidence may be admitted, it is essential that the wife be allowed to discover facts necessary to present it and to cross-examine the husband's witnesses regarding issues it raises. By precluding the opportunity to discover necessary information, the district court may have rendered meaningless any later ruling it may make to admit the evidence. The trial court's unreasonably narrow restriction of discovery seriously handicapped the wife's capacity to find and present evidence. She has no practical remedy by appeal. We hold that this abuse of the trial court's discretion warrants our intervention to prevent a miscarriage of justice.