Velma Walker v. Hunter Donaldson, Llc Rebecca Rohlke
46814-0
Wash. Ct. App. UOct 25, 2016Background
- Walker (class rep.) sued Hunter Donaldson, its officers Ralph Wadsworth and Rebecca Rohlke, and others alleging fraudulent notarization, invalid medical liens, CP A and tort claims arising from liens filed/collected under a MultiCare contract.
- Walker served initial discovery (May 2013) to Hunter Donaldson, Wadsworth, and Rohlke. The defendants removed to federal court, later remanded; disputes arose whether the original discovery remained effective.
- Walker held CR 26(i) meet-and-confer calls (Mar 6 and May 2, 2014) and filed motions to compel when responses/production were incomplete; the court granted an order to produce by April 25 and later a May 23 order compelling full responses and imposing daily sanctions for noncompliance.
- Defendants provided partial, redacted, and unsigned/uncertified responses, then later asserted they had no responsive documents in their possession or control because documents were corporate property of Hunter Donaldson (which later filed bankruptcy).
- The trial court found Wadsworth and Rohlke — though corporate agents — had access to and control over corporate documents, willfully violated discovery orders, imposed escalating monetary sanctions, and entered multiple judgments against them totaling the accrued sanctions.
- On appeal, Wadsworth and Rohlke challenged (1) the trial court’s authority to hear the second motion to compel under CR 26(i), (2) the sufficiency and clarity of the orders to compel, (3) whether they had control of corporate documents, and (4) whether sanctions were justified. The Court of Appeals affirmed and awarded Walker appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (Wadsworth/Rohlke/Hunter Donaldson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to hear the May 23 motion to compel under CR 26(i) | Walker: she satisfied CR 26(i) via the Mar 6 and May 2 telephone conferences and the May 13 follow-up email and certified compliance | Defendants: the May 2 phone call and May 13 email did not meet the literal CR 26(i) meet-and-confer and certification requirements (Clarke/Case/Rudolph) | Court: Walker met CR 26(i); trial court had authority to hear the motion. |
| Whether the orders to compel were clear and required production of corporate documents | Walker: March 28 and May 23 orders plainly required full and complete responses including all responsive documents by specified deadlines | Defendants: orders were ambiguous and did not compel corporate documents; documents belonged to the corporation, not the individuals | Court: orders were clear and required production; not ambiguous. |
| Whether Wadsworth and Rohlke had "control" over corporate documents so they could be compelled to produce them | Walker: as corporate officers/employees they had continuing involvement and access to emails, calendars and other documents; thus they had control | Defendants: corporate documents were Hunter Donaldson’s property and subject to bankruptcy stay; individuals lacked control | Court: record supports trial court’s finding that Wadsworth and Rohlke had control; they later produced documents they admitted were under their control. |
| Whether monetary sanctions and entry of judgments for contempt under CR 37 were appropriate | Walker: defendants willfully disobeyed discovery orders; sanctions and judgments are authorized under CR 37; fees and costs warranted | Defendants: sanctions improper (lack of clarity, lack of control, procedural issues); Burnet factors should have been applied | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; willful violation supported; Burnet factors inapplicable to monetary sanctions here; fees and appellate costs awarded to Walker. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clarke v. Office of Attorney General, 133 Wn. App. 767 (2006) (contemporaneous two-way conference required under CR 26(i) to support motion to compel)
- Case v. Dundom, 115 Wn. App. 199 (2003) (letters alone insufficient to satisfy CR 26(i) in-person or phone requirement)
- Rudolph v. Empirical Research Sys., Inc., 107 Wn. App. 861 (2001) (meet-and-confer certification required; mere reference to conference in letter was insufficient)
- Magaña v. Hyundai Motor America, 167 Wn.2d 570 (2009) (willful disregard of discovery or court orders justifies sanctions; appellate standard of review)
- Rivers v. Wash. State Conference of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674 (2002) (party’s disregard of court order without reasonable excuse is willful; sanctions may be imposed)
- Fisons Corp. v. Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993) (trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions)
- Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (1997) (explains factors for certain sanctions; here noted that Burnet factors do not apply to monetary sanctions at issue)