Blair v. TA-Seattle East No. 176
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
¶1 A trial court has the authority to strike a party’s witnesses as a sanction where there is a showing of intentional or tactical nondisclosure, willful violation of a court order, or unconscionable conduct. A party’s failure to meet specific court ordered discovery deadlines is a presumptively willful violation of the court’s orders. Here, a personal injury plaintiff repeatedly failed to timely disclose possible witnesses and offered no reasonable explanation for failure to do so. We hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in striking some of the plaintiff’s witnesses.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
- Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
- Burnet v. Spokane AmbulanceWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Avenue AssociatesWashington Supreme Court · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jones v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- Blair v. TA-Seattle East No. 176Washington Supreme Court · 2011
- Blair v. TA-Seattle East No. 176Washington Supreme Court · 2011
- Foss Maritime Co. v. BrandewiedeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- Foss Maritime Company, Res. v. Jeff Brandewiede, Jane Doe Brandewiede, App.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.