“The rules of discovery provide that all relevant information likely to lead to admissible evidence is discoverable.” (See Neighborhood Alliance v. County of Spokane (2011) 172 Wash. 2d 702, 717.)
“Under the court rules, what constitutes relevant discovery is broad.” (See id.)
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See id.)
“A party may serve on another party a request to produce documents that constitute or contain matters within the scope of CR 26(b) and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the request is served.” (See Unimak America, LLC v. Turner (2010) 156 Wn. App. 1006.)
“If a party disagrees with the scope of production requested during discovery, it must move for a protective order and cannot withhold discoverable materials.” (See id; Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. Ass'n v. Fisons Corp. (1993) 122 Wn.2d 299, 354, 858 P.2d 1054.)
“The trial court may limit discovery if it determines that, among other reasons, the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive.” (See CR 26(b)(1)(a)(C); Unimak America, LLC v. Turner (2010) 156 Wn. App. 1006.)
“The decision to grant or deny a motion to compel discovery is subject to the discretion of the trial court.” (See Hood v. Columbia Cnty. (2022) 21 Wash. App. 2d 245, 251.)
“When discovery is appropriate, the trial judge may grant or deny a motion to compel discovery in the exercise of sound discretion.” (See Rhinehart v. Seattle Times (1982) 98 Wash.2d 226, 654 P.2d 673; Neighborhood Alliance v. County of Spokane (2011) 172 Wash. 2d 702, 747.)
“We will not interfere with discovery rulings unless the superior court has abused its discretion, causing prejudice to a party or person.” (See Flygare-Cade v. Flygare (2008) 147 Wn. App. 1007.)
“A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law.” (See Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp. (1993) 122 Wash.2d 299, 339, 858 P.2d 1054.)
“CR 26(i) requires counsel to meet and confer in an effort to resolve discovery disputes before submitting them to the court. The attorneys must meet and confer either in person or by telephone.” (See Rudolph v. Empirical Research Systems, Inc. (2001) 107 Wash.App. 861, 28 P.3d 813; Dalsing v. Pierce Cnty., Corp. (2015) 357 P.3d 80, 84 n.3.)
“A trial court does not consider a motion to compel until the moving party fulfills the meet-and-confer requirement and files a certification that the conference requirements were met.” (See Collins v. Olympic Interiors Inc., No. 54390-7-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2021).)
It is well settled that, “when responding to discovery, a party cannot simply ignore an interrogatory or request for production. To avoid making an unwanted disclosure, a party must seek a protective order under CR 26(c). An answer that is evasive or misleading is equivalent to a failure to answer.” (See CR 37(d); Magana v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2009) 167 Wn.2d 570, 584, 220 P.3d 191; Guardado v. Guardado (In re Marriage of Guardado) (2018) 2 Wn. App. 2d 1025.)
It is also well settled that “for violations of the rules of discovery, CR 26(g) and CR 37(b) allow trial courts to impose sanctions, including excluding evidence, continuing the proceedings, or granting a default judgment. The sanction imposed should be tailored to advance the purposes of discovery, and therefore should be proportional to the violation and the circumstances of the particular case.” (See id.)
Jun 24, 2024
Hon. FAMILY COURT - 2
Pierce County
Pierce County, WA
Modification of Custody
Family
Custody,Visitation
Jun 11, 2024
Active
Hon. Middleton, Thomas
Superior
Grant County, WA
Unlawful Detainer Uncontested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Miscellaneous
May 22, 2024
Active
Hon. Fleischbein, Lynn K
Superior
Kitsap County, WA
May 17, 2024
Closed
King County
King County, WA
May 17, 2024
Hon. FAMILY COURT - 2
Pierce County
Pierce County, WA
Modification of Custody
Family
Custody,Visitation
Unlawful Detainer Uncontested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
May 07, 2024
In Arbitration 05/06/2024
King County
King County, WA
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Parenting-Parent Determination
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Estate
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Estate
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Estate
Apr 29, 2024
Active
Hon. Howell, Andrew
Superior
Benton County, WA
Apr 29, 2024
Active
Superior
Snohomish County, WA
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Estate
Apr 25, 2024
Other
Pierce County
Pierce County, WA
Miscellaneous Type 3
Family
General Family
Unlawful Detainer Contested
Property
Unlawful Detainer
Apr 22, 2024
Other
Pierce County
Pierce County, WA
Parenting Plan\Child Support
Family
Child Support
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
