August 25, 2019

Revised United States District Court Local Rules Appendices C, J, and K

The United States District Court of the District of Colorado has revised its Local Rules of Practice, which originally went into effect on December 1, 2011. Since then, revisions have been made to Appendix C, Appendix J, and Appendix K. The updated appendices can be reviewed below.

  • Appendix K – “Statement by Defendant in Advance of Plea of Guilty”

SB 12-175: Updating Time Computations of Statutorily Based Court Rules to Conform with “Rule of Seven”

On April 20, 2012, Sens. Morgan Carroll and Ellen Roberts and Reps. Bob Gardner and Crisanta Duran introduced SB 12-175 – Concerning Statutorily Established Time Intervals. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The long awaited and much anticipated bill of the session is here!

Introduced on Friday, April 20 and scheduled for Senate Judiciary on Monday, April 23, SB 175 – Concerning statutorily established time intervals is ready for prime time.

Background and Purpose:

On January 1, 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court adopted time interval/time computation rules that impact various areas of the practice of law. In conjunction with the pure court rules there are numerous Court Rules that have a statutory basis. Legislation is required to bring the statutorily based court rules in line with the new court rules that were adopted in January.

The Colorado Bar Association (CBA) involvement with this bill has been along the lines of “assisting” the Supreme Court’s Civil Rules Committee with the passage of legislation that amends the statutorily based civil rules. The CBA has been working on the bill draft to make sure that we amend all the statutes that impact Court Rules. Our substantive sections of the CBA have been pouring over the bill draft for weeks in an effort to bring forth the most comprehensive bill draft possible. This bill is 100% technical. Nothing in it provides advantages to one party in a case over another; it merely changes time intervals and time computations for cases filed in Colorado courts.

The new rules and the proposed statutory changes that we bring are patterned after recent reform of the Federal Rules (trial court and appellate) that were approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress in 2009. As in the Federal Rule concept, a day is a day, and because calendars are divided into seven-day week intervals, groupings of days are in seven-day intervals, sometimes referred to as “Rule of 7.” Groupings of less than seven days are left as they are because such smaller numbers do not interfere with the underlying concept.

Historically, state court rules have patterned federal rules because practitioners often practice in both court systems. It is particularly desirable to have similar time interval/time computation systems. The proposed concept differs from the Federal system in one respect: the Federal Rules have retained the three-days-for-service feature, whereas the proposed state court rule eliminates it. This is largely due to the fact that near universal mandatory e-filing/serving makes the three-days-for-service unnecessary and not worth the additional confusion it adds to the process.

Since this summary, the bill passed a Second Reading in the Senate with amendments.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

e-Legislative Report: Week Fifteen, April 23, 2012

In this week’s Legislative Video Update, the budget bill wrapped up with unprecedented support in the senate. Plus, Michael Valdez explains why you better brush up on your seven-day times table.

From the CBA Legislative Policy Committee

The Legislative Policy Committee met on Friday, April 20 but did not take any new positions on legislation.

From the Capitol

The long awaited and much anticipated bill of the session is here!

Introduced on Friday, April 20 and scheduled for Senate Judiciary on Monday, April 23, SB 12-175Concerning statutorily established time intervals is ready for prime time.

Background and Purpose:

On January 1, 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court adopted time interval/time computation rules that impact various areas of the practice of law. In conjunction with the pure court rules there are numerous Court Rules that have a statutory basis. Legislation is required to bring the statutorily based court rules in line with the new court rules that were adopted in January.

The Colorado Bar Association (CBA) involvement with this bill has been along the lines of “assisting” the Supreme Court’s Civil Rules Committee with the passage of legislation that amends the statutorily based civil rules. The CBA has been working on the bill draft to make sure that we amend all the statutes that impact Court Rules. Our substantive sections of the CBA have been pouring over the bill draft for weeks in an effort to bring forth the most comprehensive bill draft possible. This bill is 100% technical. Nothing in it provides advantages to one party in a case over another; it merely changes time intervals and time computations for cases filed in Colorado courts.

The new rules and the proposed statutory changes that we bring are patterned after recent reform of the Federal Rules (trial court and appellate) that were approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress in 2009. As in the Federal Rule concept, a day is a day, and because calendars are divided into seven-day week intervals, groupings of days are in seven-day intervals, sometimes referred to as “Rule of 7.” Groupings of less than seven days are left as they are because such smaller numbers do not interfere with the underlying concept.

Historically, state court rules have patterned federal rules because practitioners often practice in both court systems. It is particularly desirable to have similar time interval/time computation systems. The proposed concept differs from the Federal system in one respect: the Federal Rules have retained the three-days-for-service feature, whereas the proposed state court rule eliminates it. This is largely due to the fact that near universal mandatory e-filing/serving makes the three-days-for-service unnecessary and not worth the additional confusion it adds to the process.

Criminal Procedure Rule 17(h) Revised for Failure to Obey Subpoena; Effective in July

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Rule 17(h) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure – Failure to Obey a Subpoena. The rule change comes after the Court requested comment last year. The new rule reads:

(h) Failure to obey subpoena.

(1) Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. Such contempt is indirect contempt within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 107. The trial court may issue a contempt citation under this subsection (1) whether or not it also issues a bench warrant under subsection (2) below.

(2) Trial witness—bench warrant.

(A) When it appears to the court that a person has failed without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena commanding appearance at a trial, the court, upon request of the subpoenaing party, shall issue a bench warrant directing that any peace officer apprehend the person and produce the person in court immediately upon apprehension or, if the court is not then in session, as soon as court reconvenes. Such bench warrant shall expire upon the earliest of:

(i) submission of the case to the jury; or

(ii) cancellation or termination of the trial.

(B) Upon the person’s production in court, the court shall set bond.

This amendment was adopted on April 23, 2012 and is effective July 1, 2012.

Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 17(h), outlined as Rule Change 2012(05).

Change of Address, Bounce-Back Email, and Non-Admitted Appearance Processes Revised by United States District Court for Colorado

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has revised its rules regarding how the court will process attorney address changes, email bounce-backs, and appearances by non-admitted attorneys. It is important for attorneys to be aware of their obligations to the courts, especially regarding how to proceed when you change your physical address or email address or when you need to appear before the court when you are not admitted:

Change of Address:

Currently, clerk’s office staff compare the signature block of an attorney’s most recent filing with the attorney’s contact address information in CM/ECF and, when needed, will update the contact information to comport with the most recent provided address. The current process of checking for address changes for attorneys is very time consuming and impedes on the time needed to address the efficient docketing of case filings and court actions.

Compliance with local rules D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M and D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.3M regarding notice of change of address falls exclusively upon attorneys. Clerk’s office staff should not provide attorney support work regarding the checking for a need to update an address. Staff will, therefore, no longer automatically check for address update information and will rely on proper notice by the attorney as required by the Court’s local rules. This revised process will go into effect on April 9, 2012.

Bounce-back Emails:

In 2005, when the court went live on electronic filing, the clerk’s office began to monitor bounce-back emails related to electronic case entries posted by clerk’s office staff, chambers staff, or attorney counsel. Typically, bounce-back emails occur as a result of counsel’s failure to update their email addresses. The monitoring process was initially implemented as a check to the innovative use of electronic filing and service and notice of the same. Use of electronic filing is now the standard process for all attorneys to post and receive case information.

As directed by local rules D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.2D, D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M, D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.2D, and D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.3M, counsel are to inform the court of any change of email address within 5 days of the change. Whenever an attorney filer’s email address changes, the attorney is to electronically update her/his ECF electronic profile to activate the new email address. As long as an attorney is in good standing with the bar of the Court, it is the attorney’s responsibility to keep his/her email address(es) current regardless of place of employment, whether or not counsel of record in an open or closed case, or even if no longer practicing law.

It has been the experience of clerk’s office staff that bounce-back emails resulting from wrong email addresses occur in a variety of situations. Attempts to determine correct email addresses are very time consuming and often unproductive due to non-responsive attorneys. A number of opinions from district and appellate courts exist citing the responsibility of counsel to monitor the docket of the court for the need to address such matters as maintaining up-to-date contact information, including current email addresses. Therefore, effective April 9, 2012, the clerk’s office will no longer monitor bounce-back emails. Should chambers have a question about a specific attorney’s email address, clerk’s office staff will certainly assist with any effort to address the question.

Non-Admitted Appearing Attorneys:

In the past, when an attorney made an appearance pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1A or D.C.COLO.LCrR 44.1A, and the attorney was not admitted to practice in this court, clerk’s office staff would contact the attorney by phone, email, or letter informing her/him of the duty to seek admission or withdraw his/her appearance. An attorney may be contacted multiple times over a protracted period. Unfortunately, this time consuming process does not usually result in the attorney taking the requested action. When no action is taken by the attorney, the clerk’s office notifies chambers that the attorney has been unresponsive.

To streamline this procedure and focus the responsibility on the attorney’s obligation to comply with the local rules, the clerk’s office will begin using the following docket entry in place of the an attempt to gain compliance via direct contact:

“The Court construes that (name of attorney) has entered an appearance as an attorney in (cite the case number.) Pursuant to (D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1A or D.C.COLO.LCrR 44.1A), only members admitted to the bar of this court can enter an appearance as an attorney. The attorney records of the court do not reflect that (name of the attorney) is a member of the bar. Unless an application for admission to the bar is received within 20 days of the date this entry, further action may be taken by the court.”

Streamlining the procedure will eliminate letters, emails, and phone calls by clerk’s office staff and may further assist in reducing associated work performed by chambers staff. The docket entry will provide notice to appearing attorneys and chambers. This procedure will go into effect on April 9, 2012.

Colorado Supreme Court Makes Minor Change to Rule for Judicial Duty to Report Misconduct

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Chapter 20 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 251.4 – Duty of Judge to Report Misconduct or Disability. The minor change updates a reference to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. The updated rule now references RULE 2.15 instead of Canon 3(B)(3).

This amendment was adopted on April 12, 2012 and is effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 251.4, outlined as Rule Change 2012(04).

Proposed Rule Change to Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1)

The Colorado Supreme Court is proposing changes to Crim.P. 32.2(c)(1) an is seeking comments on the amended rule. The revised rule will read:

(c)  Appellate Procedure.

(1) Unitary Notice of Appeal.  The notice of appeal for the direct appeal and the notice of appeal for all post-conviction review shall be filed by unitary notice of appeal in the supreme court no later than WITHIN 7 days after the trial court’s order on post-conviction review motions, OR WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE DEADLINE FOR FILING POST-CONVICTION REVIEW MOTIONS IF NONE HAVE BEEN FILED.  The unitary notice of appeal need conform only to the requirements of sections (1), (2), (6) and (8) of C.A.R. 3(g).

An original plus eight copies of written comments concerning this rule change should be submitted no later than 5:00 pm on Monday, April 30, to: Christopher T. Ryan, Clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Ste. 800, Denver, Colorado 80202.

CRCP 121 Statewide Practice Standards Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Rule 121 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules – Statewide Practice Standards. The change was made to Section 1-15 Determinations of Motions. The amendment adds a tenth item, with no change to the preceding nine paragraphs:

10. PROPOSED ORDER. EACH MOTION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PROPOSED ORDER SUBMITTED IN EDITABLE FORMAT. THE PROPOSED ORDER COMPLIES WITH THIS PROVISION IF IT STATES THAT THE REQUESTED RELIEF BE GRANTED OR DENIED.

This amendment was adopted on February 29, 2012 and is effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 121, outlined as Rule Change 2012(03).

Colorado Supreme Court Updates Reference in Chapter 38 of Colorado Court Rules

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Chapter 38 of the Colorado Court Rules, Rule 1 – Public Access to Records and Information. The minor change updates a reference to a Chief Justice Directive that was superseded in 2005. The updated rule now references CJD 05-01 in stead of the outdated CJD 98-05.

This amendment was adopted on February 29, 2012 and is effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to Chapter 38, outlined as Rule Change 2012(02).

Proposed Repeal and Re-Adoption of Colorado Civil Procedure Rule 45 and Subpoena Form

The Colorado Supreme Court requests written public comments on the proposed repeal and re-adoption of Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 5, Rule 45 and the Subpoena Form to be used with that Rule.

Click here to read the full proposal for the rule and form.

Interested persons should submit one original and eight copies of the written comments to Christopher Ryan, Clerk of the Supreme Court, 101 W. Colfax Ave., 8th Floor, Denver, Colorado, by Friday, June 29, 2012.

Scope of Civil Procedure Rules Amended by the Colorado Supreme Court

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Rule 1 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Scope of Rules. The change provides that:

  1. Amendments shall be effective on the date established by the Supreme Court at the time of their adoption, and
  2. Unless otherwise stated by the Supreme Court as being applicable only to actions brought after the effective date of an amendment, amendments govern all proceedings in actions brought after they take effect and all further proceedings in pending actions (except if a court determines that their application in a particular pending action would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the former procedure applies).

This amendment was adopted on February 1, 2012, applies retroactively to January 1, 2012, and is effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 1 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, outlined as Rule Change 2012(01).

State Board of Health Proposes Rule to Require Annual Influenza Vaccination for Certain Nursing Facility Personnel

The Colorado State Board of Health has proposed a rule to require all acute care and long-term nursing care facilities to annually vaccinate personnel against influenza. All other licensed healthcare entities must assess their own clients, staff, and services and develop a written policy regarding influenza vaccination of its health care workers. All licensed healthcare entities will be required to annually report their influenza vaccination rates to the Department.

A hearing on the proposed rule will be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at the Department of Public Health and Environment, Building A, Sabin-Cleere Conference Room, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246, beginning at 10:00 am.

Full text of the proposed rule can be found here. Further information about the rule and hearing can be found here.