Seattle Trademark Lawyer

If you ever practice in Washington — even pro hac vice — I’ve got a case you should know about.

It isn’t a trademark case, but any case in which discovery sanctions result in a $8 million default judgment is worth heeding.

In this product liability case, Washington’s Clark County Superior Court found the attorney representing car manufacturer Hyundai Motor America, admitted to practice in the case pro hac vice, unilaterally limited his client’s responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests and otherwise frustrated straight-forward attempts to obtain discoverable information.

After an evidentiary hearing that spanned three days, the trial court found: “(1) there was no agreement between the parties to limit discovery, (2) Hyundai falsely responded to [the plaintiff’s] request for production and interrogatories, (3) [the plaintiff] was substantially prejudiced in preparing for trial, and (4) evidence was spoiled and forever lost.”

As a consequence, the trial court found the only suitable remedy was a default judgment.

The Washington Supreme Court’s reaction? On Nov. 25, it affirmed in a 7-2 decision. (Dissent here.)

“Trial courts need not tolerate deliberate and willful discovery abuse,” Justice Richard Sanders wrote. “Given the unique facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the trial court appropriately diagnosed Hyundai’s willful efforts to frustrate and undermine truthful pretrial discovery efforts by striking its pleadings and rendering an $8,000,000 default judgment plus reasonable attorney fees. This result appropriately compensates the other party, punishes Hyundai, and hopefully educates and deters others so inclined.”

The case cite is Magaña v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 80922-4 (Wash.) (Nov. 25, 2009).

Seattle Times article here.