In recent years, Washington courts have increasingly imposed severe sanctions for discovery violations, ranging from six- and seven-figure monetary penalties to default judgments and bar referrals. These decisions demonstrate a heightened judicial focus on accountability and transparency in the discovery process. But do these outcomes reflect adherence to the legal standards that Washington courts are required to follow?
 
A Surge in Sanctions: What Are Washington Courts Doing?
 
A review of recent cases reveals a clear trend: trial courts are not hesitating to impose substantial and sometimes unprecedented sanctions where discovery misconduct is alleged to undermine the integrity of the process.
 
Monetary Sanctions for Withholding Insurance Information: In a personal injury case, the defense allegedly disclosed an excess policy days before trial, and another excess policy after the jury returned an $11.25 million verdict. The court imposed a $1 million sanction to be paid to the Red Cross, finding that the late disclosures materially impacted plaintiff’s ability to prepare and strategize. The court emphasized that, without consequences, litigants might routinely withhold such information:
 
But the Court’s concern is that if there is no meaningful sanction, which is required under Rule 26(g), it can easily become routine for a defendant to fail to disclose insurance, and then claim that is just a mistake and that there has been no prejudice to the plaintiff – i.e., no harm, no foul… And it is particularly egregious, because this is information that only the insurance company controls. The plaintiff has no other way of getting it other than through a discovery request, and if the Court does not require that there be reasonable inquiries into what policies there may be that are available to satisfy a judgment, what is the incentive to produce those policies?
 
Sanctions for Allegedly Concealing Evidence: In a product liability case, the defendant did not disclose that it retained physical samples of the materials central to causation and argued that the broad discovery requests issued by plaintiff did not seek production of such testing. This surfaced mid-trial, the court sanctioned the company $1.5 million, stating it would have granted a default judgment had the full extent of the misconduct been clear earlier. The court reasoned that:
 
A pure monetary sanction of this amount will hopefully educate [Defendant], its counsel, and the public that shirking discovery obligations in Washington State will not be tolerated. It will also (hopefully) deter similar conduct in the future by the participants of this litigation as well as the Bar. As for punishment, given its global reach and the fact that it has engaged in other serious and egregious discovery misconduct, a monetary award of this size will serve to adequately punish [Defendant].
 
Referral for Ethical Violations: Another court sanctioned both a party and its former counsel for allegedly failing to update discovery responses after an excess insurance policy was allegedly rescinded and for failing to disclose over 30 visits by defense counsel to a represented co-defendant’s facility. The court imposed nearly $500,000 in sanctions as attorneys’ fees and costs to the plaintiff and co-defendant and referred three attorneys to the Washington State Bar Association for potential disciplinary action.
 
Default Judgment for Alleged Ongoing Defiance: In an asbestos wrongful death case, a corporate defendant allegedly repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, even after daily sanctions and appellate court involvement. The trial court ultimately struck the defendant’s answer in its entirety and entered default judgment, including a default judgment on negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, and proximate cause. After the default judgment, the court held a bench trial on damages and awarded approximately $16.7 million in damages.
 
These cases mark a shift in tone: Washington courts are increasingly focused on ensuring that discovery obligations are met with diligence and candor, particularly in complex litigation where late disclosures or evasive responses can drastically shift trial outcomes.
 
Are Courts Following the Legal Standards?
 
Washington courts have long recognized that discovery sanctions, particularly those that affect the merits of the case, must be grounded in established legal principles. Harsh sanctions such as evidence exclusion or default require a three-part showing:
 

 
This framework, derived from cases like Marina Condominium Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Stratford at Marina, LLC, 161 Wn. App. 249, 260 (2011) and Smith v. Behr Process Corp., 113 Wn. App. 306, 325 (2002) reflects the due process concerns inherent in depriving parties of their day in court.
 
In theory, courts are expected to apply this framework before imposing severe sanctions. In practice, recent decisions show varying degrees of analytical rigor. In some cases, trial courts have thoroughly documented their findings on willfulness, prejudice, and proportionality, making detailed reference to the parties’ conduct and the impact on trial preparation. However, other sanctions orders contain strong policy-based reasoning but more limited discussion of lesser sanctions or whether the misconduct was deliberate versus negligent.
 
Conclusion: A Clear Warning Shot, but With Mixed Adherence to Doctrine
 
The recent surge in sanctions across Washington state sends a strong message: discovery is not a formality, and violations will not be tolerated. Whether it is the alleged failure to disclose applicable insurance coverage, the concealment of physical evidence, or persistent noncompliance with court orders, courts are increasingly willing to impose meaningful and harsh penalties to protect the integrity of the process.
 
At the same time, the consistency with which courts apply the legal standards governing sanctions is mixed. While many decisions demonstrate faithful application of the rules, including analysis of willfulness, prejudice, and lesser alternatives, others lean heavily on the alleged egregiousness of the conduct without fully articulating each required factor.
 
Going forward, practitioners should expect courts to continue this trend and should assume that both trial conduct and discovery responses will be scrutinized closely. The safest course is full transparency, timely supplementation, and proactive client management. Because in Washington, discovery misconduct is no longer met with a slap on the wrist - it may just cost your case.
 
Author: Kelsey Shewbert is a partner in the Seattle office of HWS Law Group, where she handles complex civil and commercial litigation across Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and Idaho. Her practice encompasses catastrophic injury and wrongful death, product liability, and professional liability matters.