§9.5 DISCOVERY ETHICS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RPC 3.4
Discovery obligations and constraints are governed primarily by the procedural rules—with CR 26 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 setting the general standards applicable to, respectively, state and federal civil litigation. In turn, CR 37 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 govern discovery sanctions in state and federal civil matters. The Washington Supreme Court has spoken forcefully over a number of years on the need for litigators to respond fully and accurately to discovery requests, with Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993), remaining the seminal case and Magana v. Hyundai Motor America, 167 Wn.2d 570, 220 P.3d 191 (2009), being a more recent example. The procedural standards are covered in depth in the Washington Civil Procedure Deskbook (Wash. State Bar Assoc. 3d ed. 2014).
Most sanctions for discovery misconduct occur under the applicable procedural rules of the particular case. The RPCs do, however, address discovery-related issues in RPC 3.4, which is titled "Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel." Washington RPC 3.4 has remained largely unchanged since it was originally adopted in 1985 and official comments were added in 2006. See generally Robert H. Aronson, An Overview of the Law of Professional Responsibility: The Rules of Professional Conduct Annotated and Analyzed, 61 Wash. L. Rev. 823, 867-69 (1986) (discussing the rule as originally adopted); WSBA Ethics 2003 Reporter's Memorandum at 45-46 (discussing the addition of official comments). Washington RPC 3.4 is patterned on Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct r. 3.4, except that ABA Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct r. 3.4(f), which...
