Case v. Dundom
Court of Appeals of Washington
1DissentMorgan, J.
(dissenting) — CR 26(i) provides:
The court will not entertain any motion or objection with respect to rules 26 through 37 unless counsel have conferred with respect to the motion or objection. . . . Any motion seeking an order to compel discovery or obtain protection shall include counsel’s certification that the conference requirements of this rule have been met.
This rule is patterned after King County Local Rule 37(e)2 and parallels a portion of Federal Rule of Civil *205Procedure 37(a)(2).3 Its primary purpose is to minimize the use of judicial resources during discovery, or, in the more…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2001
- Imperial Chemicals Industries, PLC v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Rudolph v. Empirical Research Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Rudolph v. Empirical Research Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.