Venue for CCJRA Show-Cause Hearings Lies Where the Records Are Located; Ancillary Jurisdiction Unavailable When a Specific Statute Governs — Commentary on People v. Sotade, 2025 CO 38 (Colo.)

Case: In re The People of the State of Colorado v. Adetayo Sotade, No. 25SA9

Court: Colorado Supreme Court (en banc)

Date: June 9, 2025

Opinion by: Justice Hart (joined by Chief Justice Márquez and Justices Boatright, Hood, Gabriel, Samour, and Berkenkotter)

Disposition: Order to show cause made absolute; Douglas County District Court may not hold a CCJRA show-cause hearing for records located in Jefferson County; ancillary jurisdiction unavailable.

Introduction

People v. Sotade resolves a previously unanswered procedural question under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA): Where must a show-cause application be filed when a custodian denies access to criminal justice records? The answer, the Supreme Court holds, is straightforward and rooted in the statute’s plain language: in the district court of the district where the records are found. The Court also makes a consequential clarification about the judiciary’s ancillary jurisdiction: when the General Assembly has supplied a specific statutory vehicle and venue, courts may not invoke ancillary jurisdiction to circumvent it.

The decision arose out of a broader public integrity issue tied to misconduct by a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) DNA analyst, Yvonne “Missy” Woods. In the underlying Douglas County criminal case against Adetayo Sotade, the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) sought wide-ranging CBI records via the CCJRA. When the CBI’s custodian denied disclosure in part, defense counsel filed a show-cause application in Douglas County, where the criminal case is pending—even though the records reside at the CBI in Jefferson County. The Douglas County District Court asserted ancillary jurisdiction and set a show-cause hearing. The CBI petitioned the Supreme Court for extraordinary relief under C.A.R. 21.

The Court’s opinion clarifies the meaning of the CCJRA’s venue directive in section 24-72-305(7) and cabins the use of ancillary jurisdiction to situations where no statute or rule governs. The ruling has immediate practical implications for criminal justice agencies, defense and prosecution teams statewide, and public records practitioners.

Summary of the Opinion

Plain-language holding on venue: Section 24-72-305(7), C.R.S. (2024), requires a person denied access to records covered by the CCJRA to apply “to the district court of the district wherein the record is found.” This is a mandatory venue prescription. A show-cause hearing must occur where the records are located (here, Jefferson County for CBI records).
“May” is permissive as to filing, not forum: The statute’s use of “may” makes the decision to seek a show-cause order discretionary. But if one seeks such an order, the forum is fixed by the statute—where the records are found.
Ancillary jurisdiction unavailable: Ancillary jurisdiction is a judicially created efficiency tool that supplements (but does not replace) subject matter jurisdiction. It cannot be used when a specific statute or rule squarely governs the matter. Because section 24-72-305(7) supplies the governing procedure and the venue, ancillary jurisdiction does not apply.
Characterization as venue, not subject matter jurisdiction: The Court explains that section 305(7) functions as a venue limitation rather than a limitation on district courts’ general subject matter jurisdiction. But it remains a binding legislative limitation on where a CCJRA show-cause application may be brought.
C.A.R. 21 jurisdiction exercised: The Court accepted original jurisdiction because appellate remedies would be inadequate. If the improper show-cause hearing proceeded, CBI would have to appear and potentially disclose records; such disclosures cannot be undone on appeal. The issue is also of first impression and of statewide importance.

Factual and Procedural Background

Sotade faces felony charges in Douglas County. The CBI performed forensic testing in the case; while a different analyst conducted testing, Missy Woods served as the technical reviewer. After revelations that Woods had tampered with DNA testing in numerous cases over decades, OSPD sought broad CBI records:

Internal affairs investigative records concerning Woods;
All cases in which Woods served as analyst or technical reviewer; and
All cases in which Woods testified since 2007.

The CBI custodian produced some materials and withheld others in the custodian’s discretion, providing only a list of jurisdictions and dates for Woods’s testimony with case identifiers redacted. OSPD then filed an Application to Show Cause in Sotade’s Douglas County criminal case. The CBI moved to quash or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that section 305(7) mandates filing where the records are found—Jefferson County. The district court asserted ancillary jurisdiction under Woo v. El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, 2022 CO 56, 528 P.3d 899, and set a hearing. The CBI petitioned the Supreme Court for relief under C.A.R. 21. The Supreme Court granted the petition and now makes the rule absolute.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents and Authorities Cited

People v. Sprinkle, 2021 CO 60, 489 P.3d 1242.
Sprinkle addressed section 24-72-303(4)(f), a different CCJRA provision involving internal affairs files with nearly identical “may file an application” language. There, the district court in the county where the records were located held a show-cause hearing even though the requester had not formally filed an application; the custodian requested the hearing, and the parties proceeded. The Supreme Court held the “may file an application” requirement was non-jurisdictional and could be waived.

In Sotade, the Court distinguishes Sprinkle: the question there was whether the application filing requirement is jurisdictional. It was not. The question here is where the hearing may be held. Sprinkle does not authorize show-cause hearings in a district other than where the records are found. Indeed, Sprinkle’s proceedings occurred in the proper venue (El Paso County).
Woo v. El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, 2022 CO 56, 528 P.3d 899.
Woo recognized that courts possess ancillary jurisdiction to resolve matters not provided for by statute or rule, particularly to avoid illusory remedies and insurmountable procedural hurdles. In Woo, no statute or rule allowed a criminal defendant to seek return of lawfully seized property after sentencing, and a civil action was blocked by the CGIA. The Court allowed ancillary jurisdiction, applying a four-part test rooted in People v. Hargrave, 179 P.3d 226 (Colo. App. 2007).

Sotade limits Woo: ancillary jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass a specific statute that governs the matter (here, CCJRA § 24-72-305(7)). Where the legislature supplies the mechanism and venue, courts cannot superimpose ancillary jurisdiction for convenience or efficiency.
People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010).
Cited to explain why proceeding improperly via CCJRA creates irreparable harm. Disclosure through a CCJRA process circumvents the ordinary protective-order and motion-to-quash tools available in criminal discovery. If the improper show-cause hearing proceeded and disclosure occurred, an appeal could not undo the disclosure.
Venue and original jurisdiction authorities:
The Court relies on Magill v. Ford Motor Co., 2016 CO 57, 379 P.3d 1033, and Hagan v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2015 CO 6, 342 P.3d 427, to emphasize that venue determinations are appropriate for C.A.R. 21 review because they directly affect the trial court’s authority and can avoid costly retrials or irreparable consequences. It also cites Ortega v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C., 265 P.3d 444 (Colo. 2011), People v. Tafoya, 2019 CO 13, 434 P.3d 1193, and People v. Hernandez, 2021 CO 45, 488 P.3d 1055, for standards governing the Court’s exercise of original jurisdiction.
Statutory interpretation authorities:
The opinion applies standard interpretive canons, citing Thomas v. People, 2021 CO 84, 500 P.3d 1095; McCulley v. People, 2020 CO 40, 463 P.3d 254; and Arvada Village Gardens LP v. Garate, 2023 CO 24, 529 P.3d 105. It treats district courts’ broad subject matter jurisdiction as a given (Marks v. Gessler, 2013 COA 115).
Ancillary jurisdiction background:
The doctrine supplements, but does not replace, subject matter jurisdiction and exists “absent some specific statutory denial of power” (Morrow v. D.C., 417 F.2d 728, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1969), quoted in Woo). Section 305(7) is just such a specific statutory directive that fixes venue.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court proceeds in three steps: original jurisdiction, plain-language interpretation, and the inapplicability of ancillary jurisdiction.

Original Jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21:
The Court takes the case because an appeal after a show-cause hearing would not be adequate. If Douglas County proceeds to a hearing, the CBI must attend and may be compelled to disclose records. CCJRA disclosures cannot be undone, and proceeding via CCJRA may bypass discovery-specific safeguards (protective orders, motions to quash). The matter is of first impression with statewide implications for agencies holding criminal justice records.
Plain Language Controls Venue (Section 24-72-305(7)):
The statute states: a person “may apply to the district court of the district wherein the record is found” for an order to show cause. The Court reads “may” as permissive only as to whether a requester chooses to seek judicial relief at all. If a requester chooses to apply, the location is fixed by the statute—“the district wherein the record is found.” The text contains no contingency or exception allowing a court in a different district (such as the court presiding over a related criminal case) to conduct the CCJRA show-cause proceeding.

The Court emphasizes both the ordinary-meaning canon and the commonsense practicalities: if requesters could file anywhere, agencies could be haled into show-cause proceedings across the state over the same or similar requests, an outcome at odds with legislative design and efficiency. Treating section 305(7) as a venue rule is consistent with the district courts’ general subject matter jurisdiction; it is nonetheless a binding legislative constraint on forum.

The Court distinguishes Sprinkle: that case turned on whether the application requirement is jurisdictional (it is not) and whether it could be waived (it can). It did not address where the hearing had to occur. Moreover, Sprinkle proceeded in the proper venue (where the records were located).
Ancillary Jurisdiction Is Unavailable Where a Statute Governs:
Ancillary jurisdiction ensures judicial efficiency where no statute or rule provides a mechanism to resolve a matter integral to a case. Woo exemplifies that scenario—no statutory path existed for post-sentencing return of seized property. By contrast, the CCJRA supplies both the mechanism and the venue: section 305(7) instructs where to file. That specificity forecloses ancillary jurisdiction. The Court therefore does not reach whether Woo’s four-part test could otherwise be met.

The Court underscores that the concerns animating Woo—illusory remedies, insurmountable hurdles—are absent. A requester has a clear statutory path: file where the records are located. And criminal defendants retain ordinary discovery tools, which the Court stresses remain distinct from the CCJRA. “The CCJRA is not a discovery tool.”

3) Practical Impact and Future Consequences

People v. Sotade resets the ground rules for CCJRA show-cause practice and the use of ancillary jurisdiction in related criminal proceedings.

Venue certainty for CCJRA show-cause proceedings: Requesters must file in the district where the records are found. For statewide agencies such as the CBI, this centralizes litigation in the agency’s home district (here, Jefferson County), potentially improving consistency, limiting duplicative proceedings, and reducing forum shopping.
Clear boundary between CCJRA and criminal discovery: Defendants seeking case-specific materials can and should use criminal discovery tools (including subpoenas duces tecum, protective orders, and motions to quash). Broad CCJRA requests aimed at agency-wide issues must follow section 305(7)’s venue rule and may not be litigated in the criminal case court via ancillary jurisdiction.
Limits on ancillary jurisdiction: Sotade is a strong doctrinal signal: when the General Assembly supplies a governing statute or rule, courts may not deploy ancillary jurisdiction to achieve convenience or efficiency in a different forum. This principle will likely be invoked beyond CCJRA contexts wherever a specific statutory mechanism and venue exist.
Systemic records investigations: For public defenders or other requesters pursuing systemic review (as with the fallout from Woods’s misconduct), the decision funnels show-cause litigation to the districts where the custodians maintain the records. Coordinated, consolidated practice may follow.
Appellate posture and irreparable harm: The Court’s willingness to use C.A.R. 21 in venue disputes underscores that improper forum choices in pretrial CCJRA matters may warrant extraordinary relief given the risk of irreversible disclosure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CCJRA (Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act): A statute governing access to criminal justice records held by public agencies. Unlike open records laws for public (non-criminal) records, the CCJRA often vests discretion in custodians to withhold disclosure, subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion at a show-cause hearing.
Show-cause application (section 24-72-305(7)): If a CCJRA request is denied, the requester can ask a court to order the custodian to explain why disclosure should not be allowed. In Sotade, the Court holds this application must be filed in the district court of the district where the record is found.
“May” in statutes: “May” is generally permissive—not mandatory. Here, it means a requester may choose to seek judicial relief or not. But if the requester chooses to apply, the statute’s venue phrase (“of the district wherein the record is found”) mandates where the application must be filed.
Venue vs. subject matter jurisdiction: Subject matter jurisdiction concerns a court’s power over the class of cases; Colorado district courts have broad subject matter jurisdiction. Venue concerns the proper location for litigation. Section 305(7) is a venue directive: it channels where to file (the district where the records are found) without stripping other district courts of subject matter jurisdiction over CCJRA matters in general.
Ancillary jurisdiction: A court’s authority to decide issues closely related to a main proceeding to ensure efficiency and complete justice, used when no statute or rule supplies the mechanism. It supplements but does not replace subject matter jurisdiction and cannot override a specific statute that governs the issue, as clarified in Sotade.
Subpoena duces tecum (SDT): A subpoena to produce documents or records. In criminal cases, SDTs and associated discovery rules come with protective orders and motion-to-quash procedures tailored to case-specific needs. The Court reiterates that “the CCJRA is not a discovery tool,” emphasizing the difference between discovery and public-records access.
C.A.R. 21 original jurisdiction: The Supreme Court’s discretionary power to grant extraordinary relief where no adequate appellate remedy exists and where issues are of significant public importance.

Key Takeaways

CCJRA show-cause applications must be filed in the district court where the records are found; venue is not optional.
“May” in section 24-72-305(7) is permissive only as to whether to seek judicial review; it is not a choice of forum.
Ancillary jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass a statute that squarely applies and fixes venue.
CCJRA is distinct from criminal discovery; courts caution against using CCJRA as a discovery surrogate.
The Supreme Court will use C.A.R. 21 to prevent irreparable harm from improper venue in CCJRA proceedings.

Practice Notes and Strategic Implications

For requesters (defense, media, public): File the show-cause application in the district where the custodian maintains the records. For CBI records, that is Jefferson County. Consider consolidating systemic requests there to streamline litigation and avoid venue challenges.
For criminal litigants: When records are case-specific, rely on criminal discovery tools in the trial court (SDTs, motions, protective orders). Use CCJRA when pursuing broader, non-case-specific records, but file the show-cause in the proper venue.
For agencies: Maintain clear custodial designations and record-location practices; expect show-cause litigation in your home district. Sotade reduces the risk of being haled into multiple far-flung forums over the same records.

Unresolved or Emerging Questions

Defining “where the record is found” in a digital era: The opinion assumes records are located at the custodian’s headquarters. Future disputes may explore where electronically stored records are “found” (e.g., servers, backup repositories, or the custodian’s office).
Multiple custodians or distributed records: If a requester seeks records held by multiple agencies in different districts, Sotade suggests separate applications may be required—an issue for coordination and judicial administration not squarely addressed here.
Scope of “ancillary jurisdiction” beyond CCJRA: Sotade signals that any instance where a statute fixes process and venue likely precludes ancillary jurisdiction, but edge cases may continue to test Woo’s four-part test where statutory guidance is lacking.

Conclusion

People v. Sotade provides a crisp, text-driven rule for CCJRA practice: a show-cause hearing must be sought in “the district court of the district wherein the record is found.” The decision restores venue certainty, prevents forum shopping, and keeps CCJRA litigation anchored where custodians maintain their files. Just as importantly, the Court cabins ancillary jurisdiction, reaffirming that it is a limited, efficiency-oriented doctrine that yields to specific statutory directives.

In the wake of Sotade, practitioners should recalibrate CCJRA strategies and maintain a sharp distinction between public-records access and criminal discovery. Agencies can expect centralized proceedings in their home districts, while requesters must tailor their filings accordingly. As the criminal justice community continues to address the consequences of forensic misconduct allegations, Sotade ensures that the procedural pathway for public-records challenges remains clear, predictable, and faithful to legislative design.