Discovery Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

January 7, 2025November 6, 2025

WSHRC: Failure to Provide Information

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (hereinafter, “WAC”), what are the Washington State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, “WSHRC”) regulations concerning failure to provide information? Here’s my point of view.

IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.

Advertisement

When a Party Fails to Provide Information: Understanding WAC 162-08-097

In Washington State, the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) plays a crucial role in enforcing anti-discrimination laws under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60*. To carry out investigations and hearings, the Commission must often request documents, testimony, and other evidence from individuals or organizations involved in a case. But what happens when a party refuses to provide the required information?

The answer lies in WAC 162-08-097*, titled “Failure to provide information.” This regulation outlines the Commission’s authority and process for compelling the production of information—essentially, its enforcement mechanism when cooperation breaks down.

1. Orders Compelling the Production of Information

Under subsection (1), the chairperson of the Commission has broad authority to issue orders similar to those a court can issue under Civil Rule (CR) 37(a)* — “including an order awarding expenses of the motion to compel production of information pursuant to WAC 162-08-09501*.” Thus, CR 37* governs motions to compel discovery in civil litigation, including the ability to require compliance and award expenses if a party refuses to cooperate.

This means that when a person or organization fails to provide documents or testimony during a Commission investigation or hearing, the Commission’s chairperson can issue an order compelling production—much like a court would do in a lawsuit.

The executive director of the Commission may request such an order by filing a motion with the chairperson. Before doing so, reasonable notice must be given to all affected parties. The procedure for filing and resolving the motion follows WAC 162-08-019*, which governs motion practice before the Commission.

If the dispute arises during testimony taken under oath—such as during a deposition—the party asking the question (the “proponent”) has the discretion to either continue the examination or pause it to seek an order compelling the answer.

2. Enforcing an Order in Court

Even after the Commission issues an order compelling production, a party might still refuse to comply. In that case, subsection (2) authorizes the Commission to enforce its order through the courts. Specifically, the matter can be referred to the Commission’s legal counsel, who may seek enforcement of the subpoena or order in Washington Superior Court.

This step ensures that the Commission’s authority has the backing of the judicial system—giving its orders real weight and ensuring that investigations and hearings are not obstructed by non-cooperation.

Implications

For individuals, this rule underscores the importance of cooperating with Commission investigations. Refusing to provide requested information can lead to formal orders and even court involvement.

For attorneys and employers, WAC 162-08-097* serves as a reminder that proceedings before the Commission are not informal or toothless. The Commission possesses quasi-judicial powers that mirror those of a court when it comes to discovery and compliance.

Ultimately, the regulation helps the WSHRC ensure fairness and efficiency in enforcing Washington’s civil rights laws—maintaining the integrity of the process for everyone involved.

In summary

WAC 162-08-097* gives the Washington State Human Rights Commission the authority to compel and enforce the production of information necessary for its investigations. If a party fails to cooperate, the Commission can issue an order similar to a court order under CR 37*—and, if needed, seek judicial enforcement in superior court.

This balance of administrative and judicial power ensures that discrimination investigations proceed fairly and without undue delay.

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» WA State Human Rights Commission Complaints

» WA State Human Rights Commission: Functions, Powers, and Duties

» WSHRC: From Complaint to Conclusion

» WSHRC: Organization and Operations

» WSHRC: Relationship of Commission to Complainant

» WSHRC: Withdrawal of Complaint

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

–gw

October 24, 2024October 24, 2024

WA State Declines to Adopt the Apex Doctrine

In Washington State, have courts adopted the “apex doctrine” (hereinafter, “Apex Doctrine”)? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

THE APEX DOCTRINE: GENERALLY

Fundamentally, the Apex Doctrine is a legal principle that provides protection to certain high-ranking officials from being required to testify in depositions. It is acknowledged in different ways across various jurisdictions, leading to significant variations in its application; and not all jurisdictions have adopted it.

(Employment Law Tip: In Washington State, it’s not uncommon for employment-discrimination plaintiff’s to seek depositions of their employer’s relevant “high-ranking officials.”)

THE POLICY BEHIND THE DOCTRINE

The primary goal of the Apex Doctrine is to prevent undue harassment and misuse of the discovery process. It recognizes that adversaries may seek to leverage depositions of senior officials to gain an advantage in legal disputes, potentially disrupting their ability to perform their duties. By limiting the circumstances under which these officials can be deposed, the Apex Doctrine aims to strike a balance between the need for relevant testimony and the protection of those in leadership positions from unnecessary scrutiny.

WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO ADOPT THE APEX DOCTRINE

In 2023, the Washington State Supreme Court–in Stratford v. Umpqua Bank, 534 P.3d 1195 (2023)–addressed the applicability of the Apex Doctrine in Washington State. It found that “[n]o reported Washington opinion has explicitly adopted the apex doctrine, at least not in name.” Id. Accordingly, the Court determined the Doctrine, which restricts the deposition of senior officials unless certain conditions are fulfilled, has not been accepted because it conflicts with current discovery rules and the overarching right to discovery. See id.

Ultimately, the Court elected not to adopt the Doctrine in Washington State and concluded it “is not widely followed; its application is inconsistent and its acceptance is waning.” Id.

(Employment Law Tip: In Washington State, this ruling could be considered a win for employment-discrimination plaintiffs statewide.)

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Apex Doctrine serves as a significant legal principle aimed at protecting high-ranking officials from undue deposition, but its inconsistent adoption across jurisdictions highlights its contentious nature. While the Doctrine seeks to balance the need for relevant testimony with the protection of senior officials, the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision not to embrace it underscores a growing skepticism regarding its validity. As legal frameworks continue to evolve, the future of the Apex Doctrine remains uncertain, with its relevance increasingly challenged by existing discovery rules and the fundamental right to access evidence in legal proceedings.

need help?

If you need help with your employment issue, then consider a consultation with an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

-gw

May 9, 2024October 21, 2024

Civil Procedure: The CR 26(i) Conference Requirement (WA State)

Under Washington State Superior Court Civil Rules (hereinafter, “CR”), what is the CR 26(i) conference requirement? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

The CR 26(i) Conference Requirement (WA State)

In civil litigation in Washington State, adherence to procedural rules is paramount for the smooth functioning of the legal system and ensuring fairness for all parties involved. One such rule that holds significant importance concerning the discovery process is CR 26(i)*. In this article, I delve into what this rule entails and why it’s crucial for civil attorneys practicing in Washington State to understand and comply with it.

Understanding CR 26(i)

Requirement for Conference of Counsel

CR 26(i)* mandates that before presenting any motion or objection concerning Rules 26 through 37 (Depositions and Discovery) of the Washington State Rules of Superior Court*, counsel for the parties involved must confer with each other. This conference should be arranged at a mutually convenient time and can take place either in person or via telephone.

Good Faith Conferencing

The rule emphasizes the necessity of conducting the conference in good faith. This implies that the parties involved should engage in meaningful discussions aimed at resolving issues or reaching agreements regarding the motion or objection at hand.

Sanctions for Non-Compliance

Should the court determine that counsel for any party has willfully refused or failed to confer in good faith as required by CR 26(i)*, it holds the authority to apply sanctions as outlined under Rule 37(b)*. These sanctions can encompass a range of punitive measures, highlighting the seriousness with which the court views non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Certification Requirement

Importantly, any motion seeking an order to compel discovery or obtain protection must include certification from counsel affirming that the conference requirements of CR 26(i)* have been met. This certification serves as evidence of compliance and ensures transparency in the litigation process.

Importance of Compliance

Compliance with CR 26(i)* is not merely a procedural formality; it serves several crucial purposes:

1. Facilitating Communication

By necessitating conference among counsel, the rule promotes open communication and collaboration between parties. This can often lead to the resolution of disputes without the need for court intervention, thereby saving time and resources.

2. Efficient Case Management

Ensuring that parties engage in pre-motion conferences helps streamline the litigation process. By addressing potential issues early on, the court can better manage its docket and expedite proceedings.

3. Promoting Fairness

The requirement for good-faith conferencing underscores the principle of fairness in litigation. It encourages parties to engage in constructive dialogue and seek mutually acceptable solutions, ultimately promoting equitable outcomes.

4. Enhancing Accountability

The certification requirement adds an extra layer of accountability for counsel, reinforcing the importance of compliance with procedural rules. It acts as a safeguard against frivolous or improper motions, thereby promoting the integrity of the legal process.

Conclusion

In civil litigation in Washington State, adherence to procedural rules like CR 26(i) is indispensable. By mandating pre-motion conferences and ensuring good faith engagement among counsel, this rule serves to foster communication, streamline proceedings, and uphold the principles of fairness and accountability within the legal system. Attorneys practicing in Washington State must familiarize themselves with CR 26(i) and diligently adhere to its requirements to navigate civil litigation successfully. Failure to do so can not only result in sanctions but may also undermine the integrity of the litigation process itself.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

April 25, 2024October 21, 2024

WA State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16: A Guide for Litigators

Under Washington State Court Rules, how may litigators utilize WA State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16 (Pretrial Procedure and Formulating Issues)? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

WA State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16: A Guide for Litigators

In the legal arena, rules and procedures govern every aspect of a case, ensuring fairness and efficiency in the pursuit of justice. Washington State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16* is one such crucial guideline that sets the stage for the orderly progression of civil litigation. Understanding CR 16 is essential for attorneys and litigants alike to navigate the complexities of the legal process in Washington State courts effectively.

What is CR 16?

CR 16, short for Washington State Rule of Civil Procedure 16, outlines the requirements and procedures for pretrial conferences and the development of a litigation plan. It serves as a roadmap for streamlining the litigation process, promoting early settlement, and ensuring that cases proceed expeditiously through the court system. The court rule states as follows:

CR 16
PRETRIAL PROCEDURE AND FORMULATING ISSUES

(a) Hearing Matters Considered. By order, or on the motion of any party, the court may in its discretion direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a conference to consider:

(1) The simplification of the issues;

(2) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;

(3) The possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof;

(4) The limitation of the number of expert witnesses;

(5) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action.

(b) Pretrial Order. The court shall make an order which recites the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered, and which limits the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of counsel; and such order when entered controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice. The court in its discretion may establish by rule a pretrial calendar on which actions may be placed for consideration as above provided and may either confine the calendar to jury actions or to nonjury actions or extend it to all actions.

CR 16* (emphasis and hyperlink added).

Key Components of CR 16

1. Pretrial Conferences: CR 16 allows–by order, or on the motion of any party–pretrial conferences to facilitate communication between parties and the court during the litigation process. These conferences aim to identify and narrow the issues in dispute, explore opportunities for settlement, and establish a framework for the efficient resolution of the case.

2. Litigation Plan: One of the central features of CR 16 is the formulation of a litigation plan. This plan outlines the parties’ proposed course of action, including simplifying the issues, amendments to the pleadings, the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents, limiting the number of expert witnesses, and any other pertinent matters essential for the progression of the case. The litigation plan helps parties and the court manage expectations and timelines effectively.

3. Pretrial Orders: The court must issue an order documenting the proceedings of the conference, including any amendments permitted to the pleadings and agreements reached by the parties on relevant matters. The order must delineate the issues remaining for trial, excluding those resolved through admissions or agreements of counsel. Once entered, this order governs the subsequent progression of the case unless modified during the trial to prevent clear injustice. Additionally, the court, at its discretion, may institute a pretrial calendar system for cases to undergo similar consideration. This calendar may be limited to either jury or nonjury cases, or expanded to encompass all types of actions.

Benefits of CR 16

1. Efficiency: By promoting early communication and establishing clear guidelines for case management, CR 16 helps expedite the litigation process, reducing delays and unnecessary expenses for all parties involved.

2. Clarity and Predictability: The requirement to develop a litigation plan provides clarity and predictability regarding the progression of the case, enabling parties to allocate resources more effectively and plan their litigation strategies accordingly.

3. Encouragement of Settlement: Through pretrial conferences and the exploration of settlement options, CR 16 encourages parties to resolve their disputes outside of court, potentially saving time, money, and emotional energy associated with protracted litigation.

4. Judicial Oversight: By empowering the court to actively manage the case through case management orders, CR 16 ensures that proceedings are conducted in a fair and orderly manner, with judicial oversight to address any procedural issues that may arise.

Conclusion

Washington State Rule of Civil Procedure CR 16 plays a vital role in promoting efficiency, fairness, and effective case management in civil litigation. By allowing pretrial conferences, formulating litigation plans, and providing for judicial oversight, CR 16 helps streamline the litigation process and facilitates the early resolution of disputes. Attorneys and litigants should familiarize themselves with CR 16’s requirements to navigate the complexities of civil litigation in Washington State courts successfully.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

January 4, 2024October 21, 2024

Employment Law 101: Requests for Admission

Under Washington State laws, what are “Requests for Admission” within the context of civil litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

INTRODUCTION: REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (CIVIL LITIGATION)

Within the context of Washington State civil litigation, Requests for Admission (RFAs) play an important role in the pre-trial discovery process. This formal procedure allows parties involved in a lawsuit to narrow down the issues and facts that are genuinely in dispute. In this blog post, I discuss Requests for Admission, exploring their purpose and significance in the litigation process.

I. Definition and Purpose of Requests for Admission

Requests for Admission involve the creation of written statements by one party, which are then served on any other party within the pending action. These statements seek admissions or denials regarding particular facts or the authenticity of specific documents pertinent to the case. In contrast to alternative discovery methods, Requests for Admission specifically aim to refine and narrow down the issues in dispute, fostering increased efficiency in the legal proceedings.

The primary purposes of Requests for Admission in Washington State include:

1. Issue Framing:

RFAs help define and clarify the key issues that are genuinely in dispute between the parties. By stipulating certain facts, the parties can streamline the litigation process and avoid unnecessary disputes over uncontested matters.

2. Cost and Time Efficiency:

By admitting facts that are not in dispute, the parties can reduce the scope of the trial, thereby saving time and litigation costs. This promotes a more expeditious resolution of the case.

II. Significance in Litigation Strategy

Requests for Admission can significantly impact the overall litigation strategy. Properly executed RFAs can:

1. Narrow Down Issues:

By compelling the opposing party to admit certain facts, RFAs can help narrow down the issues in dispute, making the trial more focused and efficient.

2. Evidentiary Value:

Admissions made through RFAs can be used as evidence at trial. This can simplify the presentation of evidence and contribute to a more straightforward case presentation.

3. Cost Savings:

Streamlining the issues at an early stage through RFAs can lead to cost savings for both parties by minimizing the time and resources required for trial preparation.

Conclusion

Requests for Admission serve as a powerful tool in the toolkit of litigators in Washington State. When utilized effectively, RFAs can contribute to a more streamlined and cost-effective litigation process, ultimately facilitating the swift resolution of disputes. Understanding the procedural aspects and strategic implications of Requests for Admission is essential for legal professionals navigating the complex landscape of civil litigation in Washington State.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Employment Law 101: Depositions

» Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: Interrogatories

» Employment Law 101: Requests for Production

LEARN MORE

–gw

December 28, 2023October 21, 2024

Employment Law 101: Requests for Production

Under Washington State laws, what are “requests for production” within the context of civil litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

INTRODUCTION: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

In the context of Washington State civil litigation, effective discovery processes play a crucial role in ensuring a fair and transparent legal system. One essential component of the discovery phase is the “request for production.” This legal mechanism serves as a powerful tool for parties involved in civil litigation, allowing them to obtain relevant documents and information from the opposing party. In this blog post, I explain the request for production within the context of Washington State civil-litigation law.

Definition and Purpose

A request for production is a formal legal request made by one party to another, seeking the production of documents, electronically stored information, and things; or entry onto land for inspection and other purposes. Generally, the requested production must be relevant to the pending litigation. This process is governed by the Washington State civil rules (and associated local court rules), which outline the procedures and guidelines for civil cases within the state.

The primary purpose of a request for production is to facilitate the exchange of information between parties, ensuring that each side has access to the necessary evidence to build and present their case. This mechanism promotes transparency, fairness, and the efficient resolution of legal disputes.

Key Components of a Request for Production

Specificity and Relevance:

• Requests must be specific and clearly state the documents or items being sought.

• Generally, the requested items must be relevant to the issues in the case.

Timing and Procedure:

• Requests for production are typically made after the initial pleadings but before trial.

• Parties must adhere to the timelines and procedures outlined in the Washington State civil rules (and associated local court rules).

Format and Delivery:

• Requests must be in writing and served on the opposing party.

• The requesting party must “specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the production and performing the related acts[.]” See CR 34(b)(2)(B).

Objections and Responses:

• The party responding to the request is entitled to raise objections. It is imperative that objections be voiced promptly, and the corresponding responses must be furnished within the specified time constraints.

Privilege and Confidentiality:

• Generally, the requesting party cannot demand the production of documents protected by attorney-client privilege or other recognized privileges.

• The responding party may redact or withhold certain information based on privilege or confidentiality.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with a valid request for production can have serious consequences. The court may impose sanctions, including monetary penalties or adverse inferences against the non-compliant party. Therefore, parties should approach the request for production process with diligence and in full accordance with the established legal framework.

Conclusion

Requests for production are a fundamental element in the Washington State civil-litigation, discovery process. Ensuring compliance with the Washington rules of civil procedure enables parties to establish an equitable exchange of information, fostering an environment of fairness and ultimately supporting the equitable resolution of legal conflicts. Given the intricacies involved in requests for production and other discovery mechanisms, parties are encouraged to seek the counsel of seasoned legal professionals for effective navigation of the legal processes.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Employment Law 101: Depositions

» Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: Interrogatories

» Employment Law 101: Requests for Admission

LEARN MORE

–gw

December 21, 2023October 21, 2024

Employment Law 101: Interrogatories

Under Washington State laws, what are “interrogatories” within the context of civil legal proceedings? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Introduction: Interrogatories (WA State)

Within the context of legal proceedings, the effective utilization of discovery tools is essential for building a strong case. The interrogatory is a discovery tool that plays a substantial role in shaping the pre-trial phase. This article will address the purpose, scope, and essential guidelines of interrogatories.

What Are Interrogatories?

Interrogatories function as a written discovery technique that involves one party creating a set of questions for the opposing side in a legal dispute. The main goal is to elicit specific information essential to the case, assisting both parties in gathering facts, defining issues, and developing a well-grounded legal strategy. Unlike other discovery methods like requests for production of documents or requests for admission, interrogatories specifically focus on obtaining information through written responses.

Purpose and Scope in Washington State Law

In Washington State, interrogatories serve several essential purposes in civil litigation:

Fact Gathering

Interrogatories allow parties to obtain detailed information about the facts surrounding the case. This can include details about the opposing party’s claims, defenses, and the evidence they intend to present.

Issue Clarification

Interrogatories help to define and clarify the legal and factual issues in dispute. By asking targeted questions, parties can narrow down the focus of the case and streamline subsequent legal proceedings.

Preventing Surprises at Trial

Through the exchange of interrogatories, parties can reduce the element of surprise at trial. This promotes fair and transparent proceedings, giving each side an opportunity to understand the other’s position thoroughly.

Witness Identification

Interrogatories often include questions about potential witnesses, helping parties identify and locate individuals with relevant information. This aids in the preparation of witness lists and deposition schedules.

Key Guidelines for Interrogatories in Washington State

To maximize the effectiveness of interrogatories in Washington State, parties must adhere to specific guidelines:

Timeliness

Interrogatories must be served within the stipulated timeframes established by the Washington Civil Rules. Non-compliance may result in objections or the exclusion of sought-after information.

Relevance

Generally, questions posed in interrogatories may include “any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” See CR 26. Parties have the right to object to overly broad, unduly burdensome, or privileged information-seeking questions.

Format and Style

Clear, concise, and easily comprehensible questions are essential. Ambiguous or convoluted inquiries may lead to objections, potentially causing delays in the discovery process.

Comprehensive Responses

Responding parties are obligated to furnish complete and truthful answers. Failure to do so may result in sanctions, including adverse inferences or the exclusion of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Within the context of Washington State civil litigation, interrogatories are an indispensable discovery tool. They enable parties to improve their capacity for collecting crucial information, clarifying legal issues, and constructing a persuasive case. Adhering to the guidelines set forth by Washington State law ensures that the discovery process maintains fairness and transparency within adversarial legal proceedings. Given the intricacies involved in interrogatories and other discovery mechanisms, parties are encouraged to seek the counsel of seasoned legal professionals for effective navigation of the legal processes.

Read Our Related Articles

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Employment Law 101: Depositions

» Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: Requests for Production

» Employment Law 101: Requests for Admission

LEARN MORE

–gw

October 26, 2023October 21, 2024

Employment Law 101: Motions

Under Washington State laws, what are “motions” within the context of litigation? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Introduction: Motions

Within the context of legal proceedings, motions play a fundamental role in the pursuit of justice and the efficient functioning of the judicial system. In Washington State, as in most jurisdictions, motions serve as crucial tools for parties to request specific actions or decisions from the court. This blog post aims to provide an understanding of what a motion is within the context of Washington State law.

What is a Motion?

A motion is a formal request made by a party to a lawsuit to the court for a specific ruling or action. These requests can encompass a wide range of matters, from procedural issues to substantive legal questions. In Washington State law, motions are vital in shaping the course of litigation and ensuring a fair and just outcome.

Types of Motions

1. Procedural Motions:

These motions pertain to the conduct of the lawsuit rather than the underlying legal issues. Common procedural motions in Washington State include motions for continuance, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and motions to compel discovery.

2. Substantive Motions:

Substantive motions deal with the actual legal issues of the case. Examples of substantive motions in Washington State law include motions for injunctive relief, motions for a new trial, and motions for judgment as a matter of law (formerly known as judgments notwithstanding the verdict).

3. Interlocutory Motions:

These motions are made before a final judgment in a case, and they typically address temporary or preliminary matters. A common example in Washington State is a motion for a preliminary injunction, which seeks to preserve the status quo while the case is ongoing.

4. Ex Parte Motions:

An ex parte motion is made by one party without notice to the opposing party. These are usually reserved for emergency situations where immediate action is necessary, such as a protective order or temporary restraining order.

5. Oral vs. Written Motions:

In Washington State, parties may make oral motions during court hearings or submit written motions, depending on the specific court rules and the nature of the request. Generally, written motions provide a more detailed and organized presentation of the argument.

General Procedure for Filing a Motion

1. Draft the Motion:

A motion should be drafted carefully, following the relevant rules and format requirements. It must state the specific request, the legal basis for the request, and any supporting evidence or case law.

2. Serve the Opposing Party:

In Washington State, the rules of civil procedure usually require that the motion and any supporting documents be served on the opposing party. The timing and method of service can vary based on the nature of the motion and the court’s rules.

3. Set a Hearing Date:

Many motions in Washington State require a hearing where both parties can present their arguments before the court. The party filing the motion typically schedules this hearing with the court and provides notice to the opposing party.

4. Court Decision:

After the hearing, the court will make a ruling on the motion. The court’s decision may be immediate or take some time, depending on the complexity of the issues involved.

Conclusion

In the complex legal landscape of Washington State, motions are indispensable tools that shape the trajectory of legal proceedings. Whether addressing procedural matters or substantive legal issues, motions are key instruments for parties to seek redress, ensure a fair trial, and promote the orderly administration of justice. Understanding the various types of motions and the procedural aspects of filing them is essential for anyone navigating the Washington State legal system.

Read Our Related Articles

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Employment Law 101: Alternative Dispute Resolution

» Employment Law 101: Definition of Pleading

» Employment Law 101: Depositions

» Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: Legal Theory

» Employment Law 101: Mediation

» Employment Law 101: Remedies

» Employment Law 101: Statute of Limitations

» Employment Law 101: Summary Judgment (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: The Complaint

» Employment Law 101: The Defendant

» Employment Law 101: The Plaintiff

» Employment Law 101: The Summons

LEARN MORE

–gw

September 21, 2023October 21, 2024

Employment Law 101: Depositions

Under Washington State law, what are “depositions” within the context of legal proceedings? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

INTRODUCTION

Depositions play a pivotal role in the discovery process, allowing attorneys to gather crucial evidence, assess witness credibility, and develop their cases. Washington State is no exception to this legal practice, as it maintains its own rules and regulations governing depositions. In this article, I will delve into the essence of a Washington State deposition, its overarching objectives, and the fundamental elements that make it an indispensable instrument within the legal framework.

ESSENCE OF DEPOSITIONS

A deposition is a formal legal procedure that entails the sworn testimony of a witness or party to a lawsuit, conducted outside the confines of a courtroom. Typically, this testimony is acquired through a structured question-and-answer format, with a court reporter present to meticulously transcribe every word spoken during the proceedings. Depositions are usually orchestrated by attorneys from both sides of a case, serving as a means to unearth information, evaluate the veracity of witness statements, and document testimony for use in subsequent trial proceedings.

OBJECTIVES OF DEPOSITIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE

1. Discovery

The primary objective of a deposition is to facilitate the discovery of evidence. Attorneys employ depositions to gather pertinent information from witnesses or litigants that may prove instrumental to the case. This encompasses the collection of facts, identification of potential witnesses, and elucidation of the opposing party’s stance.

2. Testimonial Preservation

Depositions function as a safeguard for preserving witness testimony, ensuring its integrity and consistency for future reference in a courtroom setting. The deposition process mandates that witnesses provide sworn statements, thus preventing them from altering their account or providing contradictory testimony during trial.

3. Credibility Assessment

Depositions serve as an invaluable tool for scrutinizing witness credibility during trial proceedings. If a witness contradicts their deposition testimony while testifying in court, opposing counsel can employ the deposition transcript to challenge their veracity.

4. Settlement Facilitation

Depositions can also play a pivotal role in settlement negotiations. The insights derived from deposition testimony provide attorneys with a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and vulnerabilities of their case, which can, in turn, inform and facilitate settlement discussions.

ASPECTS OF A WASHINGTON STATE DEPOSITION

1. Notice

Conducting depositions in Washington State mandates meticulous notice to all relevant parties. This notice comprises critical information such as the deposition date, time, venue, and the identity of the intended deponent.

2. Conducting the Deposition

Typically, depositions are steered by attorneys who pose questions to the deponent. A court reporter is usually present to transcribe the proceedings verbatim, ensuring the faithful recording of testimony.

3. Oath and Affirmation

Prior to responding to questions, the deponent is administered an oath or affirmation to uphold the truth.

4. Objections

During depositions, it is not uncommon for attorneys to raise objections; however, deponents are generally obligated to answer the questions posed. Any objections raised can be revisited and resolved in a courtroom setting.

5. Transcription

A transcript of the deposition is meticulously prepared by the court reporter and made accessible to all involved parties. This transcript stands as the official record of the deposition and is admissible as evidence in court.

6. Utilization in Trial

Deposition transcripts hold utility in a courtroom context for various purposes, including witness impeachment, refreshing a witness’s recollection, or as substantive evidence.

CONCLUSION

Within the legal landscape of Washington State, depositions assume a critical role in the discovery process, enabling attorneys to glean essential information, evaluate witness credibility, and fortify their litigation strategies. A comprehensive understanding of the essence and nuances of Washington State depositions is imperative for legal practitioners and individuals embroiled in legal proceedings. This comprehension fosters transparency and equity within the legal system, upholding the sacrosanct principles of justice and the rule of law.

READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Employment Law 101: Alternative Dispute Resolution

» Employment Law 101: Definition of Pleading

» Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: Interrogatories

» Employment Law 101: Legal Theory

» Employment Law 101: Mediation

» Employment Law 101: Motions

» Employment Law 101: Remedies

» Employment Law 101: Requests for Production

» Employment Law 101: Statute of Limitations

» Employment Law 101: Summary Judgment (WA State)

» Employment Law 101: The Complaint

» Employment Law 101: The Defendant

» Employment Law 101: The Plaintiff

» Employment Law 101: The Summons

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

June 5, 2023October 21, 2024

Employment Law 101: Discovery (WA State)

Under Washington State law, what does the term “discovery” mean within the context of pre-trial legal proceedings? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

Introduction: Discovery (WA State)

Discovery stands as an integral component of the legal process in Washington State, as it does across the United States. This phase precedes trial and entails the exchange of information and evidence between parties involved in a lawsuit. This article will explore what discovery means within the context of Washington State jurisprudence, its critical role, and the primary methods employed to unearth important information during this crucial phase.

Objectives of Discovery

Within the framework of Washington State jurisprudence, discovery signifies the formal mechanism by which parties embroiled in a legal dispute acquire and share information, evidence, and documents pertinent to the case. Its objectives are manifold:

1. Transparent Disclosure:

Discovery ensures that all parties possess access to the same information, fostering transparency and impartiality in litigation.

2. Preparation for Trial:

It allows legal representatives to compile evidence, evaluate the merits and drawbacks of their case, and strategize for the impending trial.

3. Facilitating Settlement Negotiations:

Information amassed during the discovery process can facilitate settlement discussions by enabling parties to assess potential trial outcomes.

Significance of Discovery

Discovery carries immense weight in the legal process of Washington State for several compelling reasons:

1. Equity and Fairness:

It ensures that all parties have an equal footing in accessing and presenting evidence, thereby upholding fairness in legal proceedings.

2. Operational Efficiency:

Discovery helps streamline litigation by focusing on the core issues in dispute and preventing last-minute surprises during trial.

3. Catalyzing Settlements:

The information garnered through discovery frequently prompts negotiated settlements, ultimately conserving time and resources for all involved parties.

4. Enhanced Trial Preparedness:

Attorneys can construct more robust cases by understanding the strengths and weaknesses inherent in their own arguments as well as those of their adversaries.

Primary Methods

Similar to most U.S. jurisdictions, Washington State employs various methods for conducting discovery. The following are some principal methods:

1. Interrogatories:

Interrogatories involve the submission of written questions from one party to another. The receiving party must respond in writing, under oath. This method serves to extract information and obtain admissions regarding the case.

2. Requests for Production of Documents:

Parties can request the submission of specific documents, such as contracts, emails, or medical records, relevant to the lawsuit. These documents must be provided for examination and copying.

3. Depositions:

Depositions comprise sworn testimonies given by parties or witnesses in the presence of a court reporter. The recorded testimony can serve as evidence during the trial. Depositions enable more comprehensive questioning and clarification of information.

4. Requests for Admission:

With Requests for Admission (RFAs), one party can seek to compel the opposing party to admit or deny specific factual statements or the authenticity of documents. These admissions can simplify trial matters by narrowing the points in dispute.

5. Subpoenas:

Subpoenas are legal orders that mandate third parties, such as banks, employers, or medical providers, to produce documents or testify at a deposition. They constitute a valuable means of accessing information held by non-parties.

Conclusion

In Washington State jurisprudence, discovery constitutes a pivotal facet of the legal process, empowering parties to acquire information and evidence indispensable for resolving their disputes. By fostering transparency, aiding in trial preparation, and facilitating potential settlements, discovery contributes to the impartial and efficient administration of justice within the state’s court system. A comprehensive comprehension of the diverse methods and the significance of discovery is indispensable for anyone navigating the intricate legal terrain in Washington State.

Read Our Related Articles

We invite you to read more of our articles related to this topic:

» Employment Law 101: Depositions

» Employment Law 101: Interrogatories

» Employment Law 101: Requests for Admission

» Employment Law 101: Requests for Production

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

FRCP 35 Exams Based on Emotional Distress (9th Circuit)

Under federal law, does a plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress place his/her mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35 exams? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

THE GENERAL RULE

If a plaintiff objects to a FRCP 35 exam, the court has discretion to enter an order compelling examination only if the employer can establish:

(A) that a physical or mental condition of the person sought to be examined is “in controversy,” and

(B) that “good cause” exists.

See Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 667 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Courts in jurisdictions throughout the country are divided on the issue as to whether a claim of emotional distress places the plaintiff’s mental condition at issue (in controversy). But the modern trend in courts is to increasingly find that it does not.

FRCP 35 EXAMS BASED ON EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: 9TH CIRCUIT

The general position of courts in the 9th Circuit appears to be that a claim for emotional distress damages, by itself, is not sufficient to place the plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35(a). Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. 579, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998) (referencing, Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 92-97 (S.D.Cal.1995) (thoroughly surveying the relevant case law, distinguishing several unconventional cases including Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, hastings & Dodson, 820 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D.Cal.1993), and determining not to set Smedly, inter alia, as precedent)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead, the trend for 9th Circuit courts is as follows:

[T]he movant must also demonstrate that (1) the plaintiff has pled a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff has alleged a specific mental or psychiatric injury; (3) the plaintiff has pled a claim for unusually severe emotional distress; (4) the plaintiff plans to offer expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress and/or (5) the plaintiff has conceded that his or her mental condition is ” in controversy” for purposes of FRCP 35(a).

Id. (internal citation omitted).

These courts have further found that a Plaintiff merely seeking damages in excess of a million dollars for humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress does not justify a request for a mental examination. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. at 97.

GARDEN VARIETY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Thus, for example, a plaintiff seeking “garden variety emotional distress” damages in excess of one million dollars, pursuant to claims solely under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, may argue that he/she is not subject to FRCP 35 examination, because his/her mental condition is not in controversy (provided he/she does not satisfy the additional above mentioned requirements set forth in Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. at 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998), supra); but whoever asserts this type argument should be prepared to fight it out in Court — the defendant(s) will likely file a motion.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Behind Closed Doors: WLAD & ESD Appeals

Under Washington State law, may an employment discrimination plaintiff use favorable findings from a previous unemployment benefits appeal against the associated defendant employer, when pursuing a claim under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

A COMMON ISSUE

Occasionally, one of my employment discrimination clients will vigorously attempt to convince me that they received favorable findings against their employer during their unemployment benefits appeal conducted through the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings; and that the findings will help them win their subsequent discrimination lawsuit under WLAD. Unfortunately, I usually have bad news for those clients.

Stated differently, the issue is whether findings made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing may be admitted in a separate employment discrimination lawsuit outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer?

WA STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT

The Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) was created in 1939. Its mission is to “partner to connect employers and job seekers – supporting transitions to new jobs and empowering careers.”

If an individual applies for unemployment benefits through the ESD and is denied; then the individual can request an appeal. In that case, the ESD will forward the appeal to the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) which is not part of the ESD. The OAH will then assign an administrative law judge to hear the case.

TITLE 50 RCW

The Washington State laws relating to the ESD are contained in Title 50 RCW, and the relevant law states as follows:

Any finding, determination, conclusion, declaration, or final order made by the commissioner, or his or her representative or delegate, or by an appeal tribunal, administrative law judge, reviewing officer, or other agent of the department for the purposes of Title 50 RCW, shall not be conclusive, nor binding, nor admissible as evidence in any separate action outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts or was reviewed pursuant to RCW 50.32.120.

RCW 50.32.097 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

Findings made by an administrative law judge during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing are generally not admissible in a subsequent WLAD employment discrimination lawsuit (before an arbitrator, court, or judge) outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between the employee and the employee’s present or prior employer.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.