{"id":830,"date":"2010-01-19T14:47:30","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T22:47:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bullivant.wpengine.com\/?p=830"},"modified":"2021-03-21T13:33:20","modified_gmt":"2021-03-21T20:33:20","slug":"diligence-in-discovery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/diligence-in-discovery\/","title":{"rendered":"Washington Supreme Court Issues Not-So-Gentle Reminder ($8,000,000) About Importance of Diligence in Discovery"},"content":{"rendered":"
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Jessie Maga\u00f1a was seriously injured in a 1997\u00a0car accident involving the Hyundai Accent in which\u00a0he was a passenger. He brought suit against the drivers involved and Hyundai North America and sent several interrogatories and requests for documents to Hyundai. The requested documents included any prior “seat back failures” in other Hyundai vehicles regardless of the incident date or model of the vehicle. Hyundai objected to many of these discovery requests as “overly broad and unduly burdensome” and produced limited documents.\u00a0Maga\u00f1a did not move to compel further discovery at that point, nor did Hyundai move for a protective order.<\/p>\n

Maga\u00f1a\u00a0prevailed at trial and was awarded more than $8 million in damages. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a retrial on the issue of liability only. Maga\u00f1a then\u00a0requested that Hyundai update its prior discovery responses. When Hyundai again objected to portions of the discovery requests as being overly-broad and burdensome (thereby self-limiting the amount of discovery it was prepared to search for and produce), Maga\u00f1a moved to compel. That motion was granted. According to the Supreme Court, Hyundai delayed production until shortly before trial and then provided only limited responses. Maga\u00f1a moved for default judgment against Hyundai as a sanction for its discovery violations and, after a three-day evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion.<\/p>\n

On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Maga\u00f1a’s ability to try the case had not been prejudiced by Hyundai’s discovery violations. But the Washington Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals and reinstated the $8 million discovery sanction against Hyundai. Maga\u00f1a v. Hyundai Motor Am.<\/i>, 220 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2009).<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court found it significant that Hyundai never sought a protective order “but simply objected to Maga\u00f1a’s discovery requests, asserting the requests were overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In a sweeping statement, the court held: “If a party objects to an interrogatory or a request for production, then the party must seek a protective order under CR 26(c). CR 37(d). If the party does not seek a protective order, then the party must respond to the discovery request. The party cannot simply ignore or fail to respond to the request.”<\/p>\n

There are several lessons to take away from this recent ruling, which would be equally applicable to insurers, including:<\/p>\n