Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.115 (2026)

Discovery

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all matters governed by this title, discovery shall be permitted only in the following matters:

(1) A judicial proceeding that places one or more specific issues in controversy that has been commenced under RCW 11.96A.100, in which case discovery shall be conducted in accordance with the superior court civil rules and applicable local rules; or

(2) A matter in which the court orders that discovery be permitted on a showing of good cause, in which case discovery shall be conducted in accordance with the superior court civil rules and applicable local rules unless otherwise limited by the order of the court.

[ 2006 c 360 s 11.]

Notes:

Clarification of laws—Enforceability of act—Severability—2006 c 360: See notes following RCW 11.108.070.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Fitzgerald v. Mountain-West Resources, Inc., 294 P.3d 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fitzgerald v. Mountain-West Resources, Inc., 294 P.3d 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “RCW 11.96A.115. ¶19 Mountain-West points to the statute’s use of the term “shall” as evidence of the legislature’s intent that discovery is required by TEDRA where specific issues are in controversy.”

In Re The Donna Clark Irrevocable Trust (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “He requested discovery under RCW 11.96A.115, as well as Gary’s removal as Trustee, reimbursement of the Trust for self-dealing payments, division of the Trust into equal shares, and attorney fees and costs.”

In the Matter of the Est. of: Lawrence C. Andrews (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Because the probate court’s ruling is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable as a matter or right, and because Andrews fails to demonstrate grounds for this court to accept discretionary review, we decline review and dismiss the appeal.”

In Re The Guardianship Of Ella Nora Denny (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Discovery in guardianship cases is governed by RCW 11.96A.115, which provides as follows: In all matters governed by this title, discovery shall be permitted only in the following matters: (1) A judicial proceeding that places one or more specific issues in controversy that has…”

In the Matter of the Est. of: Bert S. Stennes (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Discovery is permitted under RCW 11.96A.115. 6 No. 37555-2-III In re Estate of Stennes 6.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 11.96A.115(2) — 1 case

Fitzgerald v. Mountain-West Resources, Inc., 294 P.3d 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 11.96A.115. ¶19 Mountain-West points to the statute’s use of the term “shall” as evidence of the legislature’s intent that discovery is required by TEDRA where specific issues are in controversy.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.