In re The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Belinda KNISLEY, and Concerning: Tina Peters. , 521 P.3d 641 ( 2022 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-07-14">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/929087169" data-vids="929087169" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">521 P.3d 641</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party">In re The <span class="ldml-name">PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b> <b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Belinda KNISLEY</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span>, <span class="ldml-party">andConcerning: Tina Peters</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 22SA290</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">December 19, 2022</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="197" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="197" data-sentence-id="197" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Honorable Matthew D. Barrett</span> : <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Eric R. Olson</span></span>, Solicitor General, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Abigail M. Hinchcliff</span></span>, First Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="396" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="396" data-sentence-id="396" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Mesa County District Court</span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">E. Lee Reichert</span></span>, Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Christopher J.L. Diedrich</span></span>, Senior Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Janna K. Fischer</span></span>, Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="651" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="651" data-sentence-id="651" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Tina Peters</span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Springer and Steinberg, P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Harvey Steinberg</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Stephen F. Prager</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Craig L. Pankratz</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="791" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="791" data-sentence-id="791" class="ldml-sentence">No appearance on behalf of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Belinda Knisley</span>.</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="844" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="844" data-sentence-id="844" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="851" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (GABRIEL, BOATRIGHT, MARQUEZ, HOOD, HART, SAMOUR, BERKENKOTTER, GABRIEL)"><span data-paragraph-id="851" data-sentence-id="851" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span>, in which CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BOATRIGHT</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">MARQUEZ</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HART</span></span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">SAMOUR</span></span>, and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BERKENKOTTER</span></span> joined</span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1030" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="1030" data-sentence-id="1030" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1081" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1081" data-sentence-id="1081" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1081"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> In this original proceeding pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s order denying <span class="ldml-entity">Mesa County District Court</span> Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Matthew D. Barrett</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash a subpoena</span> compelling him to sit for a deposition in his judicial capacity.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1325" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1325" data-sentence-id="1325" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1325"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Because, on the undisputed facts and the record before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> cannot conclude that Judge Barrett's testimony is necessary to the proceeding for which it is being sought, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> abused its discretion in compelling Judge Barrett to appear for a deposition in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1624" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1624" data-sentence-id="1624" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1624"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> make our rule to show cause absolute.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-ordinal_end="1" data-specifier="I" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="1" data-id="heading_1680" id="heading_1680" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History"><span data-paragraph-id="1680" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="1680" data-sentence-id="1680" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1680" data-sentence-id="1683" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="1711" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1711" data-sentence-id="1711" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1711"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">February 2022</span>, Judge Barrett presided over a hearing in <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> captioned <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1711" data-refglobal="case:peoplevknisley,no21cr1312"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Knisley</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">No. 21CR1312</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Dist. Ct., Mesa Cnty.)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1711" data-sentence-id="1848" class="ldml-sentence">At one point during this hearing, which concerned the return on certain subpoenas duces tecum issued by <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Belinda Knisley</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">District Attorney</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Daniel Rubinstein</span> asked to approach the bench.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1711" data-sentence-id="2062" class="ldml-sentence">At the bench, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> informed Judge Barrett that his paralegal had alerted him to the fact that <span class="ldml-entity">Tina Peters</span>, who was present in the courtroom and who is <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> in a separate case over which Judge Barrett is presiding, appeared to be recording the hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1711" data-sentence-id="2319" class="ldml-sentence">Rubinstein then confirmed that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"seen the screen, and indeed it's recording."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2402" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2402" data-sentence-id="2402" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2402"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> The attorneys stepped back, and Judge Barrett asked Peters if <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was recording.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2402" data-sentence-id="2486" class="ldml-sentence">The transcript of the hearing indicates that her response was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"indiscernible."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2402" data-sentence-id="2565" class="ldml-sentence">When <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> then asked her if <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was broadcasting the hearing, however, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> clearly responded, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"No, sir."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2678" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2678" data-sentence-id="2678" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2678"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> Immediately thereafter, Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">District Attorney</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Jonathan Mosher</span> informed <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> that at the time Rubinstein had first approached the bench, Mosher looked at Peters's screen and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"actually saw that it was depicting what's happening in the courtroom."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="2678" data-sentence-id="2934" class="ldml-sentence">After asking Mosher a follow-up question, Judge Barrett had the following conversation with Peters:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3033" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3033" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">THE COURT</span>: Ms. Peters—is that Ms. Peters; that's who I was told is—that's Ms. Peters.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3119" class="ldml-sentence">Were you recording or not, ma'am?</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3152" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3152" class="ldml-sentence">MS. PETERS: No, Sir.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3173" class="ldml-sentence">I was not.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3184" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Indiscernible)</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3201" class="ldml-sentence">This is a work day for me.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3227" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3227" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">THE COURT</span>: So then, did you have your video up for some reason?<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="644" data-vol="521" data-id="pagenumber_3290" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span></span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3290" class="ldml-blockquote"> <span data-sentence-id="3291" class="ldml-sentence">MS. PETERS: No.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3306" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3306" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">THE COURT</span>: So, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> just completely mis-saw what was ever <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[sic]</span> on your screen?</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3383" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3383" class="ldml-sentence">MS. PETERS: Yes.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3400" class="ldml-sentence">I don't need to record.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3424" class="ldml-sentence">This is recorded, right?</span> <span data-sentence-id="3449" class="ldml-sentence">I don't need to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[do]</span> that.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3475" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3475" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">THE COURT</span>: No. You don't need to do it, because there's a sign outside the door that says no recording.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3578" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3578" class="ldml-sentence">MS. PETERS: I understand.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3604" class="ldml-sentence">You know, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>'re just wrong.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3634" class="ldml-sentence">And, if <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[it]</span> makes Your Honor feel better—</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3676" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3676" class="ldml-sentence">....</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3680" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3680" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">THE COURT</span>: Well, the bottom line is—as I mentioned, there's a sign on the door that says no recording, video, audio—it's all common sense for most folks to know that.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3847" class="ldml-sentence">This is a recorded proceeding in any event.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3891" class="ldml-sentence">So, this is the one warning that the individual in the courtroom will get.</span> <span data-sentence-id="3966" class="ldml-sentence">If I find that someone has violated this order in the future, then I'll take appropriate action, and it will be appropriate—no doubt in my mind about that.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="4121" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4121" data-sentence-id="4121" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> then directed <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> back to the subject matter of the hearing.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4203" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4203" data-sentence-id="4203" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4203"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> Later in the hearing, after returning from a recess, Judge Barrett made the following pertinent findings:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_4311" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="4311" class="ldml-sentence">I'll begin by noting that previously—it had come to <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span>'s attention that someone may have been recording in the courtroom.</span> <span data-sentence-id="4440" class="ldml-sentence">I do not find one way or another as to whether that person was recording, or broadcasting, or audio recording—video recording<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[,]</span> whatever it may have been.</span> <span data-sentence-id="4596" class="ldml-sentence">That individual told me that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were not doing any of those three things.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_4671" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="4671" class="ldml-sentence">So, I relied on that representation in not entering any type of action at that time.</span> <span data-sentence-id="4756" class="ldml-sentence">If I had known if it had been confirmed I would have done something differently, and that's in-part, because there is a decorum order that I entered in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> back on <span class="ldml-entity">September 8</span>th. ...</span> <span data-sentence-id="4945" class="ldml-sentence">My decorum order says this—no one is authorized to record any portion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span>'s proceedings via audio or—or video, and that, of course, would encompass broadcasting of the same.</span> <span data-sentence-id="5128" class="ldml-sentence">So, I make that additional record.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="5162" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5162" data-sentence-id="5162" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5162"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8 A</span></a></span> few weeks later, <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> filed a <span class="ldml-entity">verified motion for an order directing</span> the issuance of a citation commanding Peters to show cause why <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> should not be held in contempt for dishonesty to <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> when <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> answered <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s questions as to whether <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was recording the proceedings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5162" data-sentence-id="5457" class="ldml-sentence">In support of this motion, <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> referenced and attached affidavits from the paralegal who had first informed Rubinstein of the alleged recording at issue and from a witness asserted to have been sitting next to Peters at the hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5162" data-sentence-id="5697" class="ldml-sentence">The motion indicated that according to the latter witness, Peters had later admitted that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> had, in fact, been recording the hearing.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5832" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5832" data-sentence-id="5832" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5832"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> The day after <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> filed this <span class="ldml-entity">verified motion</span>, Judge Barrett issued a written order titled, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ACTION TAKEN: <span class="ldml-entity">Verified Mot</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[sic]</span> for contempt—Peters."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5832" data-sentence-id="5989" class="ldml-sentence">In this order, <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> concluded, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"out of an abundance of caution only,"</span> that the <span class="ldml-entity">verified motion</span> should be referred to, and if necessary be heard by, a separate judicial officer.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5832" data-sentence-id="6175" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> further indicated that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was referring the motion for reassignment, in part, because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"may be a peripheral witness to some of the alleged conduct."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5832" data-sentence-id="6340" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> reiterated, however, that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"never found that Ms. Peters was, or was not, engaging in <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> of videotaping,"</span> nor could <span class="ldml-entity">he</span>, because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"did not observe it."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5832" data-sentence-id="6502" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> never passed judgment on the veracity of either Peters's or <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span>'s representations.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6618" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6618" data-sentence-id="6618" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6618"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> Thereafter, the <span class="ldml-entity">verified motion</span> was assigned to Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Lance Timbreza</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6618" data-sentence-id="6692" class="ldml-sentence">After reviewing the transcript of the hearing, as well as the <span class="ldml-entity">verified motion</span> and attached affidavits, Judge Timbreza directed the issuance of a citation <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"as to why Peters should not be found to be in indirect contempt ... for being dishonest to <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6618" data-sentence-id="6950" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Timbreza</span></span> further ordered <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> to submit all future filings regarding the contempt action in <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6950" data-refglobal="case:peoplevknisleyconcerningtinapeters,no22cv10"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Knisley & Concerning Tina Peters</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 22CV10</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Dist. Ct., Mesa Cnty.)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7134" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7134" data-sentence-id="7134" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7134"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> Several months later, Peters served on Judge Barrett a subpoena to appear for a deposition in the contempt action.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7134" data-sentence-id="7253" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> responded by filing a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash the subpoena</span>, arguing that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> his testimony <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="645" data-vol="521" data-id="pagenumber_7350" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> was unnecessary because the transcript of the February hearing demonstrated that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> did not observe Peters's alleged conduct, while other witnesses who did observe her conduct could testify to the relevant facts; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> any deposition would impermissibly intrude on his mental processes.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7639" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7639" data-sentence-id="7639" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7639"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> In the interim, all of the district judges of the 21st <span class="ldml-entity">Judicial District</span> recused themselves from the contempt matter, and Chief Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Paul Dunkelman</span> of the 5th <span class="ldml-entity">Judicial District</span> was appointed to preside over it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7639" data-sentence-id="7855" class="ldml-sentence">As pertinent to the matter before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, Chief Judge Dunkelman ultimately denied in part Judge Barrett's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7639" data-sentence-id="7974" class="ldml-sentence">In so ruling, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> noted that Judge Barrett had made a clear record that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">he</span> did not observe Ms. Peters recording, broadcasting or audio recording the proceedings"</span> and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"interpreted Ms. Peters’ response to him as denying that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was recording the proceedings."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7639" data-sentence-id="8255" class="ldml-sentence">Nevertheless, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> agreed with Peters that the record did not capture <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the tone, demeanor or attitude of Ms. Peters or how her conduct may have offended the dignity of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7639" data-sentence-id="8440" class="ldml-sentence">On those issues, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> opined that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"there may be information and knowledge that no other person other than Judge Barrett has."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8579" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8579" data-sentence-id="8579" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8579"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> thus concluded that although <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i]</span>t is a difficult inquiry to balance the public policy against deposing a judge with the rights of Ms. Peters and the potential prejudice to her,"</span> there were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"areas where this balance supports a limited deposition of Judge Barrett."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8579" data-sentence-id="8858" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> found that Judge Barrett could be deposed, although <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> limited the scope of the deposition <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to ensure it <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[would not be]</span> undertaken in an investigatory manner or as <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8858"><span class="ldml-cite">part <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[of]</span></span></a></span> a fishing expedition ...."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8579" data-sentence-id="9089" class="ldml-sentence">In permitting such a limited deposition to take place, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> hastened to add that it was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"making no determination as to whether Judge Barrett is a necessary witness."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9259" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9259" data-sentence-id="9259" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9259"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> Notably, based on Peters's representations that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> did not seek to examine or question Judge Barrett on his mental processes or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"about why <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> made any particular decision, including whether or not to hold her <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[in]</span> contempt,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s order stated that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had agreed <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"that Judge Barrett's mental processes are not subject to discovery."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9259" data-sentence-id="9621" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span>, however, came to believe, based on Peters's <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s later representations, that Peters did, in fact, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"plan to delve into large areas of Judge Barrett's mental processes."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9259" data-sentence-id="9809" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> thus filed a <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a protective order</span>, requesting that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> limit his deposition to written questions only or, in the alternative, impose additional limitations as to how the deposition would proceed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9259" data-sentence-id="10043" class="ldml-sentence">In this motion, <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> expressed concern that any inquiry into his mental processes would create <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a significant risk of interference"</span> with Peters's separate criminal case, over which Judge Barrett is presiding.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10260" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10260" data-sentence-id="10260" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10260"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> Peters filed a response in which <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> generally denied Judge Barrett's allegations as to her intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10260" data-sentence-id="10364" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">She</span> stated, however, that in her view, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Judge Barrett's opinions on <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[her]</span> credibility <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[were]</span>, in fact, wholly appropriate lines of inquiry."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10260" data-sentence-id="10505" class="ldml-sentence">In support of this assertion, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> cited the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10505"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct</span></a></span>, which states, in pertinent part, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"A judge shall not testify as a character witness in a judicial ... proceeding ... <i class="ldml-italics">except when duly summoned</i> ."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10260" data-sentence-id="10729" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10505"><span class="ldml-cite">C.J.C. 3.3</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10757" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10757" data-sentence-id="10757" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10757"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> ultimately denied Judge Barrett's <span class="ldml-entity">request to limit</span> his deposition to written questions, but it did impose additional restraints on the deposition, including limiting the length of the deposition to one hour, ordering the deposition to occur on a specific date over the lunch hour, and permitting the deposition to be video recorded.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11112" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11112" data-sentence-id="11112" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11112"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> Five days later—on the morning the deposition was scheduled to occur—Judge Barrett filed in <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> a petition under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>, seeking immediate relief from <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s orders <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> permitting the deposition to proceed and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> denying his <span class="ldml-entity">motion for a protective order</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11112" data-sentence-id="11397" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> issued a rule to show cause.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-types="analysis" data-ordinal_end="2" data-specifier="II" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="2" data-id="heading_11428" id="heading_11428" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="II. Analysis"><span data-paragraph-id="11428" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="11428" data-sentence-id="11428" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11428" data-sentence-id="11432" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="11440" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11440" data-sentence-id="11440" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11440"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by discussing our jurisdiction to hear this matter and the applicable standard of review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11440" data-sentence-id="11543" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then proceed to review the pertinent limitations on judicial testimony, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="646" data-vol="521" data-id="pagenumber_11618" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply those principles to conclude that, on the undisputed facts and the record before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> abused its discretion in compelling Judge Barrett to appear for a deposition in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label="A. Original Jurisdiction and Standard of Review" data-ordinal_end="1" data-specifier="A" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="1" data-id="heading_11826" id="heading_11826" data-value="A. Original Jurisdiction and Standard of Review"><span data-paragraph-id="11826" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="11826" data-sentence-id="11826" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11826" data-sentence-id="11829" class="ldml-sentence">Original Jurisdiction and Standard of Review</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="11873" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11873" data-sentence-id="11874" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11874"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> The exercise of our original jurisdiction under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> is a matter that rests within our sole discretion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11873" data-sentence-id="11987" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11874" data-refglobal="case:rademachervgreschler,2020co4"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Rademacher v. Greschler</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 4</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11874"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 20</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrerademachervgreschlercaseno19sa129455p3d769january13,2020"><span class="ldml-cite">455 P.3d 769, 772</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11873" data-sentence-id="12048" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"An original proceeding under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> is an extraordinary remedy that is limited both in its purpose and availability."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11873" data-sentence-id="12170" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12048" data-refglobal="case:inrerademachervgreschlercaseno19sa129455p3d769january13,2020"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11873" data-sentence-id="12174" class="ldml-sentence">Among other things, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have exercised our jurisdiction under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> when an appellate remedy would be inadequate and when <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> might suffer irreparable harm absent <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> relief.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11873" data-sentence-id="12362" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12174" data-refglobal="case:inrerademachervgreschlercaseno19sa129455p3d769january13,2020"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12365" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12365" data-sentence-id="12366" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12366"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> Here, the harm to Judge Barrett could not be cured by an appeal in the ordinary course because <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> the damage would occur at the time <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was required to provide deposition testimony and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> Judge Barrett is not <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> in which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> could file an appeal.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12365" data-sentence-id="12633" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> deem it appropriate to exercise our discretion under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> to hear this matter.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12732" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="12733" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12733"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> review <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span>'s discovery orders, including orders modifying or enforcing subpoenas, for an abuse of discretion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="12863" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12733" data-refglobal="case:foxvalfini,2018co94"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Fox v. Alfini</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 94</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12733"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 17</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895047031" data-vids="895047031" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">432 P.3d 596, 600</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888228627" data-vids="888228627" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12983"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Spykstra</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">234 P.3d 662, 664, 666</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reviewing for an abuse of discretion <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span>'s order denying a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">modifying</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">enforcing</span>, two subpoenas duces tecum</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13129" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"A <span class="ldml-entity">trial court</span> abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, or when it misapplies the law."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13264" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13129" data-refglobal="case:peoplevjohnson,2021co79"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Johnson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2021 CO 35</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13129"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891140385" data-vids="891140385" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">486 P.3d 1154, 1158</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">citations omitted</span>)</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label="B. Judicial Testimony" data-ordinal_end="2" data-specifier="B" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="2" data-id="heading_13341" id="heading_13341" data-value="B. Judicial Testimony"><span data-paragraph-id="13341" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="13341" data-sentence-id="13341" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13341" data-sentence-id="13344" class="ldml-sentence">Judicial Testimony</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="13362" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13362" data-sentence-id="13362" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13362"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> Both the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13362"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Evidence</span></a></span> and the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13362"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct</span></a></span> proscribe judicial testimony in certain circumstances.</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span data-paragraph-id="13362" data-sentence-id="13499" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13519"><span class="ldml-cite">CRE 605</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness."</span></span>)</span></span><span data-paragraph-id="13362" data-sentence-id="13598" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13612"><span class="ldml-cite">C.J.C. 3.3</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A judge shall not testify as a character witness in a judicial, administrative, or other adjudicatory proceeding or otherwise vouch for the character of a person in a legal proceeding, except when duly summoned."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="13362" data-sentence-id="13826" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13827" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13827" data-sentence-id="13828" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13828"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> No Colorado <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> or ethical rule, however, prohibits a judge from testifying as a witness in <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> that is not on trial before that judge.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13827" data-sentence-id="13975" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888463849" data-vids="888463849" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13828"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Tippett</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">733 P.2d 1183, 1193</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888339182" data-vids="888339182" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13828"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Drake</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">841 P.2d 364, 368</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13827" data-sentence-id="14083" class="ldml-sentence">Nonetheless, when addressing the relatively rare circumstance in which a judge is summoned to testify, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recognized that it is contrary to public policy for a judge to be called as a witness to state the grounds on which that judge decided a previous case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13827" data-sentence-id="14346" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888463849" data-vids="888463849" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14083"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Tippett</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">733 P.2d at 1194</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888655433" data-vids="888655433" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14083"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Noland v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">33 Colo. 322</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">80 P. 887, 888</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1905</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13827" data-sentence-id="14438" class="ldml-sentence">This is because, as <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span> put it, examining a judge's mental processes <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"would be destructive of judicial responsibility."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13827" data-sentence-id="14572" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885648445" data-vids="885648445" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14438"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Morgan</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">313 U.S. 409, 422</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">61 S.Ct. 999</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">85 L.Ed. 1429</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1941</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">accord</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890401841" data-vids="890401841" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14438"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Hadley v. Moffat Cnty. Sch. Dist.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">681 P.2d 938, 944</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14727" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="14727" data-sentence-id="14727" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14727"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have further observed that when the record of a judgment is the best evidence, the judgment cannot be proved by parol evidence, such as the testimony of the judge who entered that judgment, and such testimony would be inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of the judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14727" data-sentence-id="15014" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888463849" data-vids="888463849" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14727"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tippett</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">733 P.2d at 1194</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14727" data-sentence-id="15041" class="ldml-sentence">When the record is ambiguous, however, the judge's testimony may be admissible <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to identify the issues raised and decided in a former trial."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14727" data-sentence-id="15183" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888463849" data-vids="888463849" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15041"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15186" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15186" data-sentence-id="15187" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15187"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado appellate courts</span> have made clear that this rule, too, has its limits.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15186" data-sentence-id="15270" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888339182" data-vids="888339182" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15270"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Drake</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">841 P.2d at 368</span></a></span>, a division of our <span class="ldml-entity">court of appeals</span> reasoned that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"given the weight to which a jury might accord <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a judge's testimony]</span> and given the judge's other duties,"</span> the practice of requiring a judge to testify regarding matters arising in a trial over which the judge previously presided should be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"sparingly used and only when the proponent of the evidence shows that the judge's testimony is not only relevant but <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="647" data-vol="521" data-id="pagenumber_15709" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> also <i class="ldml-italics">necessary</i> to prove a material element of <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15766" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15766" data-sentence-id="15767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15767"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> Whether a judge's testimony is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"necessary,"</span> or as some <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> have put it, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"essential,"</span> typically comes down to whether the judge is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the only possible source of testimony"</span> on factual information that was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"highly pertinent to the jury's task."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15766" data-sentence-id="16015" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885736256" data-vids="885736256" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_16082,sentence_15767"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Frankenthal</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">582 F.2d 1102, 1108</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">7th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1978</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">affirming the admission of a judge's testimony when the judge <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possessed factual knowledge that was highly pertinent to the jury's task, and <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was the only possible source of testimony on that knowledge"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_16395,sentence_15767" data-refglobal="case:augustevsullivan,no03-cv-2256pabklm,2009wl790135,at1dcolomar20,2009"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Auguste v. Sullivan</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 03-cv-02256-PAB-KLM</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2009 WL 790135, at *1-2</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">D. Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">Mar. 20, 2009</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that the judicial testimony sought did <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not warrant deviating from the presumption against trial testimony by a judicial officer"</span> when, among other reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> did not show that the judge was the only person who could testify about the facts at issue</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884658123" data-vids="884658123" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_16740,sentence_15767"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Roth</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">332 F. Supp. 2d 565, 568, 570</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">S.D.N.Y.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">adopting <span class="ldml-entity">the standard set forth in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885736256" data-vids="885736256" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15767"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Frankenthal</i></span></a></span></span> and concluding that the judge's testimony at issue was not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"essential"</span> because the judge was not the only possible source of the pertinent factual knowledge</span>)</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">aff'd sub nom.</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15767" data-refglobal="case:unitedstatesvstjohn,267fedappx17,222dcir2008"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. St. John</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">267 F. App'x 17</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">2d Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="17020" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17020" data-sentence-id="17021" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17021"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">These cases</span> have recognized that when a judge's testimony is not necessary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(that is, when the judge is not the only source of the factual knowledge at issue)</span>, the only remaining pertinent <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knowledge"</span> that the judge may have and that would not be available through other sources is the judge's mental processes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17020" data-sentence-id="17336" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884658123" data-vids="884658123" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17021"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Roth</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">332 F. Supp. 2d at 570</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17020" data-sentence-id="17378" class="ldml-sentence">Again, however,</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_17393" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="17393" class="ldml-sentence">the overwhelming authority from the <span class="ldml-entity">federal courts</span> in this country, including the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span>, makes it clear that a judge may not be compelled to testify concerning the mental processes used in formulating official judgments or the reasons that motivated him in the performance of his official duties.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="17711" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17711" data-sentence-id="17712" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884658123" data-vids="884658123" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 567</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-opinionnote">collecting authorities</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17748" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17748" data-sentence-id="17748" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17748"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with the foregoing principles concerning when a judge's testimony is necessary and the impropriety of compelling a judge to testify regarding the judge's mental processes in reaching a decision or the reasons motivating the performance of the judge's official duties, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will follow those principles here.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18070" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18070" data-sentence-id="18070" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18070"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> Having set forth the applicable law, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> now turn to the specific issues presented in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-content-heading-label="C. Application" data-ordinal_end="3" data-specifier="C" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="3" data-id="heading_18169" id="heading_18169" data-value="C. Application"><span data-paragraph-id="18169" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="18169" data-sentence-id="18169" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18169" data-sentence-id="18172" class="ldml-sentence">Application</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="18183" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18183" data-sentence-id="18184" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18184"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> contends that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s orders requiring him to appear for a deposition conflict with the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"general rule that a judge may not be deposed absent an extraordinary showing of need"</span> because, in his view, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> witnesses who actually saw Peters recording the proceeding could testify as to their observations, to Peters's statements to Judge Barrett, and to Peters's tone, demeanor, and attitude when <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> made those statements; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had expressly acknowledged that it had not made a determination as to whether Judge Barrett was a necessary, as opposed to just a potentially relevant, witness.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18183" data-sentence-id="18821" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> further expresses concern that Peters may be intending to elicit his opinions on her tone, demeanor, attitude, and credibility in order to use this information in a later <span class="ldml-entity">motion to disqualify</span> him from presiding over Peters's separate criminal case.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19083" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19083" data-sentence-id="19083" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19083"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> For several reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agree that on the specific <span class="ldml-entity">facts presented</span> here, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> abused its discretion in compelling Judge Barrett to appear for a deposition in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19269" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19269" data-sentence-id="19269" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19269"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> First, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not convinced that Judge Barrett possesses factual knowledge pertinent to the contempt charge beyond what can be found in the transcript of the hearing itself.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19269" data-sentence-id="19447" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> allege that Peters should be held in contempt for being untruthful in her responses to Judge Barrett.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19269" data-sentence-id="19560" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the fact-finder will be tasked with determining whether Peters lied to <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> when <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> denied recording or broadcasting the hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19269" data-sentence-id="19702" class="ldml-sentence">It appears undisputed, however, that Judge Barrett did not personally observe whether Peters had been recording.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19269" data-sentence-id="19815" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, his testimony would neither corroborate <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="648" data-vol="521" data-id="pagenumber_19868" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> nor refute the allegation that Peters was untruthful in her answers.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19937" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19937" data-sentence-id="19937" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19937"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> Second, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are unpersuaded by Peters's assertion that Judge Barrett's testimony is, nonetheless, necessary to supplement the allegedly ambiguous and incomplete transcript of the February hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19937" data-sentence-id="20137" class="ldml-sentence">In support of her position, Peters points to the fact that some of her responses to Judge Barrett's questions at the February hearing were noted in the transcript as having been <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"indiscernible."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19937" data-sentence-id="20332" class="ldml-sentence">Further, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> argues that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"recordings and associated transcriptions"</span> of the hearing do not describe what was physically occurring in the courtroom; anyone's tone, demeanor, or attitude during the hearing; or what effect Peters's conduct had on <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the tenor of the proceedings."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20610" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20610" data-sentence-id="20610" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20610"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> In its order denying Judge Barrett's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash</span>, however, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>, at least implicitly, rejected Peters's argument regarding problems with the record, noting that although there were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"portions of the transcripts that are indiscernible, Judge Barrett made it clear that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> interpreted Ms. Peters’ response to him as denying that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was recording the proceedings."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="20610" data-sentence-id="20994" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, our own review of the record reveals that Peters expressly <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(and discernibly)</span> denied recording or broadcasting the hearing more than once, and <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> admits that when asked if <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was recording, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> said that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was not doing so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20610" data-sentence-id="21231" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> cannot discern how problems with the record here would render Judge Barrett a necessary witness.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21343" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21343" data-sentence-id="21343" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21343"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> Third, even if the transcript of the hearing did not capture anyone's tone, demeanor, or attitude, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not see how this would render Judge Barrett a necessary witness in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21343" data-sentence-id="21530" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> allege that Peters obstructed the administration of justice when <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> recorded the proceedings, caused <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> to pause the proceedings to address her alleged misconduct, and was untruthful during her discussion with <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> regarding the recording.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21343" data-sentence-id="21794" class="ldml-sentence">None of these allegations rely on an assertion that Peters obstructed the administration of justice through her tone, demeanor, or attitude.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21343" data-sentence-id="21935" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not agree that Judge Barrett's testimony on Peters's tone, demeanor, or attitude is necessary in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22061" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22061" data-sentence-id="22061" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22061"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> In so ruling, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> acknowledge that in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888339182" data-vids="888339182" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22061"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Drake</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">841 P.2d at 368</span></a></span>, the division stated in dicta that a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"judge may be called to clarify an ambiguous record, for example, in a contempt or disciplinary proceeding where an individual's attitude and demeanor may not be reflected by the bare record."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22061" data-sentence-id="22355" class="ldml-sentence">For the reasons just stated, however, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not persuaded that Judge Barrett's testimony regarding Peters's attitude or demeanor in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> would be necessary to clarify the available record.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="22549" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22549" data-sentence-id="22549" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22549"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> Fourth, even if Peters's tone, demeanor, or attitude were somehow relevant to the allegations of contempt <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(an issue that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not—and do not—decide)</span>, it appears undisputed that numerous other <span class="ldml-entity">people</span> who were present in the courtroom could testify to these issues.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22549" data-sentence-id="22820" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, Rubinstein, Mosher, their paralegal, and the witness who sat next to Peters on the day of the hearing all could testify regarding Peters's actions and her statements to Judge Barrett when <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> asked whether <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was recording or broadcasting the hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22549" data-sentence-id="23086" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, Knisley, her <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>, and Peters presumably could all testify to some or all of these matters.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22549" data-sentence-id="23194" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Barrett</span></span> is not the only possible source of testimony on matters pertinent to the contempt charge, and therefore, his testimony is neither necessary nor essential here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22549" data-sentence-id="23381" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885736256" data-vids="885736256" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23194"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Frankenthal</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">582 F.2d at 1108</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884658123" data-vids="884658123" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23194"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Roth</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">332 F. Supp. 2d at 568</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23454" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23454" data-sentence-id="23455" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23455"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> On this point, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> did not find otherwise.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23454" data-sentence-id="23517" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> expressly stated that it was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"making no determination as to whether Judge Barrett is a necessary witness."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23454" data-sentence-id="23651" class="ldml-sentence">Absent such a finding, however, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> believe that compelling Judge Barrett to appear for a deposition was an abuse of discretion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23454" data-sentence-id="23779" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888339182" data-vids="888339182" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23651"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Drake</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">841 P.2d at 368</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23807" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23807" data-sentence-id="23807" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23807"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> Finally, Judge Barrett's concerns regarding the potential for an improper examination into his mental processes appear well founded.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23807" data-sentence-id="23944" class="ldml-sentence">As noted above, Peters has expressly stated that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> believes that it would be appropriate for her to inquire into Judge Barrett's opinions of her credibility.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23807" data-sentence-id="24104" class="ldml-sentence">Such an examination would be particularly inappropriate here, however, because Peters could <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-val="649" data-vol="521" data-id="pagenumber_24196" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> seek to use Judge Barrett's response to such an inquiry to attempt to disqualify him from presiding over her criminal case <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-signal">e.g.</span>, on the grounds of impropriety, partiality, or bias)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23807" data-sentence-id="24380" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> could do so even though Judge Barrett proactively sought to avoid this potentiality by voluntarily recusing himself from the contempt matter.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24529" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24529" data-sentence-id="24529" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24529"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> Judge Barrett's concern as to the possible misuse of his deposition is not merely hypothetical.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24529" data-sentence-id="24629" class="ldml-sentence">Peters has already filed a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to disqualify Judge</span> Barrett in the criminal case because, in her view, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> Judge Barrett has allegedly manifested an attitude of hostility and ill will against her and her <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> his <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"impartiality may reasonably be questioned"</span> by means of his <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"involvement and disqualification"</span> in the contempt proceeding.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24529" data-sentence-id="24978" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, as to the latter point, Peters has already argued that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Judge Barrett's status as a potential witness in contempt proceedings against Ms. Peters, although not automatic grounds for disqualification, is concerning."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24529" data-sentence-id="25201" class="ldml-sentence">To the extent, as Judge Barrett suggests, Peters is seeking his deposition, at least in part, to explore his mental processes for use in further support of her efforts to disqualify him from presiding over her criminal case, such a deposition would far exceed the narrow grounds on which judicial testimony has heretofore been deemed permissible.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24529" data-sentence-id="25548" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888463849" data-vids="888463849" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25201"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tippett</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">733 P.2d at 1194</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890401841" data-vids="890401841" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25201"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Hadley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">681 P.2d at 944</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888339182" data-vids="888339182" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25201"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Drake</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">841 P.2d at 368</span></a></span></span>.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-ordinal_end="3" data-specifier="III" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="3" data-id="heading_25637" id="heading_25637" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="III. Conclusion"><span data-paragraph-id="25637" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="25637" data-sentence-id="25637" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25637" data-sentence-id="25642" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="25652" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25652" data-sentence-id="25652" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25652"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> For these reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> abused its discretion in denying Judge Barrett's <span class="ldml-entity">motion to quash the subpoena</span> directed to him and in compelling him to appear for a deposition in Peters's contempt proceeding.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25652" data-sentence-id="25887" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore make our rule to show cause absolute.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>