Opinion
No. 58341-7-I.
May 29, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 05-2-16751-3, Richard A. Jones, J., entered May 9, 2006.
Karen Stevenson has appealed the trial court order dismissing her complaint for failure to comply with a discovery ruling. David Canning concedes that there are inadequate findings to support the order. He requests that the matter be remanded for additional findings.
Canning's concession of error is well taken. The trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions for noncompliance with discovery rules, but to impose the sanction of dismissal, the trial court must make and affirmatively state on the record findings of a willful violation, the prejudice to the other party, and the court's consideration of lesser sanctions.Rivers v. Wash. State Conf. of Mason Contrs., 145 Wn.2d 674, 693-94, 41 P.3d 1175 (2002); Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997). The sanction imposed should be balanced against the nature of the discovery violation and the surrounding circumstances.Rivers, 145 Wn.2d at 699. The record before us does not contain the findings necessary to support dismissal. Stevenson also challenges the March 24, 2006 trial court order allowing her attorney to withdraw and the March 24, 2006 order directing her to appear for a deposition. We have a very limited record on appeal and it is not clear that the trial court has had the opportunity to respond to the specific arguments being raised by Stevenson on appeal regarding lack of notice and the withdrawal of counsel.
We decline to reach these arguments. Stevenson may renew these arguments in the trial court on remand.
We accept respondent's concession of error and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We deny the various pending motions and objections filed by the parties.