Rebecca A. Rufin v. City Of Seattle
76091-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Rebecca Rufin worked at Seattle City Light (1990–2006) and later applied for a civil/mechanical engineer manager (CME) position in 2011–2012; City Light did not hire her and denied her 2012 application under a policy about prior candidates.
- Rufin sued City Light for gender discrimination and retaliation; she served discovery requesting e-mails to/from Haynes, Johnson, Cola, and others about Rufin; the trial court ordered searches of those accounts and related files.
- At trial (April 2014) the jury found for City Light; Rufin later pursued a Public Records Act (PRA) suit in which the City produced an April 18, 2012 e-mail from Haynes that had not been produced in the retaliation litigation.
- Rufin moved under CR 60(b)(4) to vacate the retaliation judgment, arguing the withheld e-mail proved City misconduct/fraud and contradicted testimony; she also sought CR 37 sanctions (default or new trial) for discovery violations and alleged spoliation under the City’s retention policy.
- The trial court denied CR 60(b)(4) and CR 37 relief, finding the City conducted a reasonable search, did not willfully withhold evidence, and that production failures and retention practices did not amount to clear-and-convincing misconduct or sanctionable spoliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rufin) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withheld April 18, 2012 e-mail amounts to fraud/misrepresentation under CR 60(b)(4) | The e-mail was responsive, withheld, and would have undermined defense witnesses; vacate judgment | City searched the accounts ordered by court, had no reason to search Maehara, did not willfully withhold documents | Court affirmed: no clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud/misrepresentation; no abuse of discretion denying CR 60(b)(4) relief |
| Whether City's automatic deletion/retention policy and loss of copies constituted sanctionable spoliation | Retention law and schedule required preservation; destruction shows culpability and warrants sanctions | E-mail did not fit retention categories; no duty shown to preserve this specific e-mail; no bad-faith destruction | Court affirmed: no sanctionable spoliation; retention policy failure not clear-and-convincing misconduct |
| Whether the e-mail’s content proved the City misrepresented facts at trial | E-mail showed Johnson (and others) knew of Rufin’s concerns earlier and contradicted testimony that they did not | The e-mail, even if received, does not show it was read, discussed, or that it related to the 2011 process; it doesn’t contradict trial testimony by clear-and-convincing evidence | Court affirmed: e-mail did not demonstrate misrepresentation sufficient to vacate judgment |
| Whether CR 37 sanctions (default or new trial) were warranted for discovery violation | City willfully violated discovery order by failing to search Maehara and withholding documents; harsh sanctions required | City reasonably searched the locations most likely to have responsive records; no willful violation; plaintiff had opportunities to investigate | Court affirmed: no willful/deliberate violation, prejudice insufficient for default/new trial; sanction denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Peoples State Bank v. Hickey, 55 Wn. App. 367 (party asserting fraud must prove by clear and convincing evidence)
- Dalton v. State, 130 Wn. App. 653 (misconduct must prevent full and fair presentation of the case)
- Mitchell v. Wash. State Inst. of Pub. Policy, 153 Wn. App. 803 (CR 60(b) review standard — abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Schweitzer, 132 Wn.2d 318 (evidentiary standard where trial court required clear, cogent, convincing proof)
- Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299 (CR 26(g) and the objective standard for reasonable inquiry)
- Homeworks Constr., Inc. v. Wells, 133 Wn. App. 892 (test for spoliation: relevance and culpability)
- Cook v. Tarbet Logging, Inc., 190 Wn. App. 448 (no general duty to preserve evidence; bad faith required for sanctionable spoliation)
- Henderson v. Tyrrell, 80 Wn. App. 592 (definition of spoliation)
- Magaña v. Hyundai Motor Am., 167 Wn.2d 570 (harsh discovery sanctions appropriate where defendant willfully withheld known responsive documents)
- Taylor v. Cessna Aircraft Co., Inc., 39 Wn. App. 828 (withholding reasonably responsive discovery can warrant relief)
- Roberson v. Perez, 123 Wn. App. 320 (trial court discretion to order new trial for discovery violations; diligence not prerequisite to relief)