STANDING ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE PROCEDURES
Judge Nina Y. Wang
United States District Court
District of Colorado
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
901 19th Street, Courtroom A-502
Denver, Colorado 80294-3589
Email:
[email protected]
Telephone: 303.335.2600
Effective: December 1, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Title and Citation ................................................................................................................ 3
B. Applicable Procedures ........................................................................................................ 3
C. Telephonic Discovery Conferences .................................................................................... 3
D. Written Discovery ............................................................................................................... 4
E. Document Privilege Issues .................................................................................................. 5
F. Depositions ......................................................................................................................... 5
2
DISCOVERY DISPUTE PROCEDURES
A. Title and Citation
1. This Standing Order shall be cited as “NYW Standing Order Regarding
Discovery Dispute Procedures, Section, Subsection, Paragraph” (e.g., NYW
Standing Order Regarding Discovery Dispute Procedures, § B.1).
B. Applicable Procedures
1. If the case has been referred to a Magistrate Judge, please consult the
Magistrate Judge’s Practice Standards to determine the applicable
procedures, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
2. In cases which I have not referred to a Magistrate Judge, or where I have
otherwise decided to adjudicate a discovery dispute, the following discovery
dispute procedures are applicable, EXCEPT cases involving pro se prisoners.
Failure to engage in this discovery dispute process without leave of Court may
lead to the striking of any filed discovery motion without substantive
consideration.
C. Telephonic Discovery Conferences
1. Before filing any discovery motion, please contact my chambers with all
counsel representing parties to the particular discovery dispute and/or the pro se
party to set a telephonic discovery conference. I expect that before the parties
contact my chambers requesting a telephonic discovery conference, the parties
will have met and conferred, either in person or by telephone, during which:
• The dispute to be presented to the Court was discussed in detail,
• Each party clearly stated its position and any position of compromise
that is acceptable to it, and
• Each party identified the basis for its position.
2. If it becomes clear that the parties have not had an adequate meet and
confer, or that one party is trying to use the discovery dispute process as improper
leverage, I may sua sponte terminate the telephonic discovery conference and
impose other sanctions if warranted.
3. Telephonic discovery conferences occur on the record. I conduct these
conferences on the record in hopes of avoiding further disputes over what
3
occurred or how the Court ruled or provided guidance during such conference.
Unless you advise my staff otherwise, you should expect that these discovery
conferences will be limited to 30 minutes. You may order transcripts of these
discovery conferences by contacting Ms. Martinez.
D. Written Discovery
1. If the dispute involves written discovery, at least one business day prior
to the telephonic discovery conference, unless otherwise ordered, the parties must
complete and submit a written discovery dispute chart in the following example
form, with the most persuasive authority included:
Issue Moving Party’s Position Opposing Party’s Position
Interrogatory No. 1 Overly broad contention Contention interrogatory is the
interrogatory. Witt v. GC appropriate vehicle and is less
Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 307 F.R.D. burdensome than a Rule
554, 559 (D. Colo. 2014). 30(b)(6) deposition on this
topic. Teashot LLC v. Green
Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., No. 12-cv-00189-WJM-
KLM, 2014 WL 485876, at *7
(D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2014).
2. The moving party must submit the chart, the disputed discovery request,
and the response to the disputed discovery request to my chambers. It should not
be filed on the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system. The parties should only
submit one final version of the chart reflecting each party’s position in the same
document. Separate charts containing only one party’s position on each of the
issues will not be accepted. Should a formal discovery motion follow, the chart
may then be included in any filing or order of the Court.
3. If the dispute does not involve written discovery, or if the parties find the
above chart unhelpful or inappropriate given the substance of their dispute, then
the parties are directed to submit a joint status report that clearly and succinctly
outlines (1) the object of the dispute, (2) the parties’ positions thereon, (3) the
authority supporting the parties’ positions, and (4) a brief summary of the parties’
good faith attempts to resolve the matter before seeking Court intervention. Like
4
the chart described above, the joint status report should not be filed on the Court’s
docket unless formal motions practice follows the informal conference.
E. Document Privilege Issues
1. Parties having issues related to the invocation of privilege are expected to
have provided a privilege log with respect to the documents at issue that can be
submitted to the Court. To the extent that a party contends that creating such a
privilege log would be too onerous, the Court expects that the party forwarding
that position will be prepared to address the burden in specific terms during the
informal discovery conference. I will likely not resolve privilege issues during
the telephonic discovery conference, and so to the extent that the parties’ dispute
concerns an assertion of attorney-client, marital, or other such privilege, the
parties should expect to engage in formal motions practice.
F. Depositions
1. If a dispute arises at a deposition, the parties still must meet and confer
regarding the issue in the manner set forth above before contacting chambers.
Parties who have disputes over the topics and/or scope of a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition, as written in the notice of deposition, are expected to raise such issues
prior to the commencement of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
5
