Nachiem v. State6/27/2005
it. The Department sought a protective order with respect to eight of the interrogatories, and one of the requests for production:
Interrogatory No. 3: Identify all the people, whether permanent, temporary, part-time, project employees of Defendant or other category, who held any form of positions of employment with Defendant Fircrest School since February 1, 1999, including their full names, position title, pay rate(s), and date(s) of employment. Identify all changes in status of the employees, last known address, and reason(s) the Defendant believes is true for their leaving employment if they are no longer employed at Fircrest School.
Interrogatory No. 5: Identify all investigations conducted by any agency of the United States government into the care of residents since 1991, which have involved Fircrest School.
Interrogatory No. 20: During the period from February 1, 1999, through the present, identify by full name and position number, every employee of Defendant's Fircrest School facility who has resigned, been discharged, disciplined, disability separated, received 'loss of earning power' payments, or suffered a cut in pay including transfer to a lesser- paying position for any reason.
Interrogatory No. 30: Identify every resident who has died while at Fircrest from January 1999 to the present, and include the date of death, the cause of death, and the name of the guardian at the time of death.
Interrogatory No. 32: Identify every investigation conducted into reported suspected abuse of a resident from January 1999 to the present.
Interrogatory No. 33: Identify every call from a Fircrest employee or resident to the DSHS abuse hotline since January 1, 1999.
Interrogatory No. 34: Identify every call involving a Fircrest employee or resident, which was taken by the DSHS abuse hotline since January 1, 1999.
Interrogatory No. 37: Identify every complaint, reprimand, counseling, CIR, or other notice of improper performance of duty involving the following Fircrest employees since January 1, 1999: (a) Shirley Gilday, (b) Carolyn Monterio, (c) Frankie Jackson, (d) Chris Benjamin, (e) Paul Anderson.
Request for Production No. 1: Please identify and attach copies of all reports, records, statements of witnesses, documents, correspondence, e-mail, or other tangible items as identified or otherwise described in answers to the preceding interrogatories.
The Department argued that the requests were overbroad, irrelevant to Nachiem's remaining claim, and objectionable because they sought confidential information protected by statute and federal regulations. The trial court granted the protective order as requested. Nachiem argues that the protective order essentially barred her from discovery on two major issues - how her discipline compared to the discipline of other workers, and complaints regarding resident neglect.
A trial court has wide discretion in ordering pretrial discovery, which will be disturbed only in the presence of an abuse of discretion. The court must manage the discovery process in a fashion that promotes full disclosure of relevant information while at the same time protecting against harmful side effects. Demelash v. Ross Stores, Inc., 105 Wn. App. 508, 519, 520, 20 P.3d 447 (2001) Discovery may be had on 'any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action'. CR 26(b)(1). If the matter sought may reasonably be expected to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, it is relevant. Bushman v. New Holland Div. of Sperry Rand Corp., 83 Wn.2d 429, 518 P.2d 1078 (1974).
Nachiem argues that similar to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|