LCR 26. Discovery, Including Disclosure of Possible Witnesses and Protective Orders

(b) Discovery Limits.

(1) Scope. This rule shall apply to all cases governed by a Case Schedule pursuant to LCR 4.

(2) Interrogatories.

(A) Cases With Court-Approved Pattern Interrogatories. In cases where a party has propounded pattern interrogatories pursuant to LCR 33, a party may serve no more than 15 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, in addition to the pattern interrogatories.

(B) Cases Without Court-Approved Pattern Interrogatories. In cases where a party has not propounded pattern interrogatories pursuant to LCR 33, a party may serve no more than 40 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.

(3) Depositions. A party may take no more than 10 depositions, with each deposition limited to one day of seven hours; provided, that each party may conduct one deposition that shall be limited to two days and seven hours per day.

(4) Requests for Admission. A party may serve no more than 25 requests for admission upon any other party in addition to requests for admission propounded to authenticate documents.

(5) Modification.

(A) Stipulation of the parties. These limitations may be increased or decreased by written stipulation of the parties based on the scope of the legal and factual issues presented. Nothing in this rule precludes the parties from engaging in the informal exchange of information in lieu of formal discovery. The parties may establish a written timetable for discovery and develop a discovery plan that will facilitate the economical and efficient resolution of the case. Such plan need not be submitted to the court for approval.

(B) Court order. If the parties do not agree that discovery in excess of that provided by these rules is necessary, a party may file a motion to submit additional discovery pursuant to LCR 7(b). The proposed order shall include details of what additional discovery is required. A certificate of compliance as required by LCR 37(f) shall be filed with the motion.

(6) Discovery requests in violation of rule.

(A) Unless authorized by order of court or written stipulation, a party may not serve requests for admission or interrogatories or note depositions except as authorized by this rule.

(B) Absent a court order or stipulation altering the scope of discovery, the party served with interrogatories or requests for admission in violation of this rule shall be required to respond only to those requests, in numerical order, that comply with LCR 26(b). No motion for protective order is required. The party shall indicate in the answer section of the Interrogatories or Requests for Admission that the party is refusing to respond to the remaining questions because they exceed the discovery limits.

(C) Absent a court order or stipulation altering the scope of discovery, a party served with a notice of deposition in violation of this rule shall inform all parties to the case that he or she will not be attending the deposition. This notification shall occur as soon as possible and, absent extraordinary circumstances, shall not be later than 24 hours before the scheduled deposition. Notice shall be in writing and shall be provided in the manner that is most likely to provide actual notice of the objection. Fax or e-mail notification is permitted, provided (1) the parties have previously agreed to receive pleadings in this manner or (2) the objecting party also provides telephonic notification.

(7) Applicability. These discovery limitations do not apply to family law proceedings as defined by LFLR 1, supplemental proceedings undertaken pursuant to LCR 69(b) or other post-judgment proceedings.

(c) Motions to Seal/ Protective Orders. A motion to seal must be made separately pursuant to LGR 15 and cannot be submitted as part of a protective order. Motions for protective order, even if agreed, shall be presented to the assigned judge and not to the ex parte department. If the case is not assigned to a judge, the motion shall be made to the Respective Chief Judge. See LGR 29(h).

(e) Discovery Not Limited. This rule does not modify a party’s responsibility to seasonably supplement responses to discovery requests or otherwise to comply with discovery before the deadlines set by this rule.

(k) Disclosure of Primary Witnesses. Required Disclosures.

(1) Disclosure of Primary Witnesses. Each party shall, no later than the date for disclosure designated in the Case Schedule, disclose all persons with relevant factual or expert knowledge whom the party reserves the option to call as witnesses at trial.

(2) Disclosure of Additional Witnesses. Each party shall, no later than the date for disclosure designated in the Case Schedule, disclose all persons whose knowledge did not appear relevant until the primary witnesses were disclosed and whom the party reserves the option to call as witnesses at trial.

(3) Scope of Disclosure. Disclosure of witnesses under this rule shall include the following information:

(A) All Witnesses. Name, address, and phone number.

(B) Lay Witnesses. A brief description of the witness’ relevant knowledge.

(C) Experts. A summary of the expert’s opinions and the basis therefore and a brief description of the expert’s qualifications.

(4) Sanctions. Failure to comply with this rule or the court’s Order Setting Case Schedule may result in sanctions, including the exclusion of witnesses.

Comment: See LGR 15 and LFLR 11 for procedures relevant to motions to seal.

Official Comment

This rule does not require a party to disclose which persons the party intends to call as witnesses at trial, only those whom the party might call as witnesses. Cf. LCR 4(j) (requiring the parties, not later than 21 days before trial, to exchange lists of witnesses whom each party "expects to call" at trial) and Official Comment to LCR 4 All Witnesses must be listed, including those whom a party plans to call as a rebuttal witness. The only exception is when the party calling a witness could not reasonably anticipate needing that witness before trial.

This rule sets a minimum level of disclosure that will be required in all cases, even if one or more parties have not formally requested such disclosure in written discovery. The rule is not intended to serve as a substitute for the discovery procedures that are available under the civil rules to preclude or inhibit the use of those procedures. Indeed, in section (e) the rule specifically provides to the contrary.

The prior version of Section 4 of this rule was, in essence, struck down by the Supreme Court in Jones v. Seattle, 179 Wn2d. 322, 314 P.3d 380 (2013). The Jones court emphasized that trial courts must follow the three-part test of Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn2d. 484, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997) prior to entering an order excluding a witness.

[Adopted effective January 1, 1990; amended effective September 1, 1992; September 1, 2001; September 1, 2003; September 1, 2005; September 1, 2007; September 1, 2008; September 1, 2010; September 1, 2011; September 2, 2014; September 1, 2015; September 1, 2017.]