Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.446 (2026)

Subpoenas, discovery, and protective orders

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The presiding officer may issue subpoenas and may enter protective orders. A subpoena may be issued with like effect by the agency or the attorney of record in whose behalf the witness is required to appear.
(2) An agency may by rule determine whether or not discovery is to be available in adjudicative proceedings and, if so, which forms of discovery may be used.
(3) Except as otherwise provided by agency rules, the presiding officer may decide whether to permit the taking of depositions, the requesting of admissions, and all other procedures authorized by rules 26 through 36 of the superior court civil rules. The presiding officer may condition use of discovery on a showing of necessity and unavailability by other means. In exercising such discretion, the presiding officer shall consider: (a) Whether all parties are represented by counsel; (b) whether undue expense or delay in bringing the case to hearing will result; (c) whether the discovery will promote the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceeding; and (d) whether the interests of justice will be promoted.
(4) Discovery orders and protective orders entered under this section may be enforced under the provisions of this chapter on civil enforcement of agency action.
(5) Subpoenas issued under this section may be enforced under RCW 34.05.588(1).
(6) The subpoena powers created by this section shall be statewide in effect.
(7) Witnesses in an adjudicatory proceeding shall be paid the same fees and allowances, in the same manner and under the same conditions, as provided for witnesses in the courts of this state by chapter 2.40 RCW and by RCW 5.56.010, except that the agency shall have the power to fix the allowance for meals and lodging in like manner as is provided in RCW 5.56.010 as to courts. The person initiating an adjudicative proceeding or the party requesting issuance of a subpoena shall pay the fees and allowances and the cost of producing records required to be produced by subpoena.
[ 1989 c 175 s 17; 1988 c 288 s 413; 1967 c 237 s 10. Formerly RCW 34.04.105.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2023 · leading case: Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Right to Call Witnesses RCW 34.05.446 gives both the presiding officer and counsel for parties the right to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend the hearing.”
Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash. 2d 516 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Right to Call Witnesses RCW 34.05.446 gives both the presiding officer and counsel for parties the right to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend the hearing.”
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to the authority delegated to the agency by RCW 34.05.446(2), other forms of discovery shall not be available in proceedings before the agency.”
Ongom v. State, Dept. of Health, 104 P.3d 29 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “100; RCW 34.05.446(3), .449, .461(4), .510-.598; WAC 246-10; See also Nguyen, 144 Wash.”
Ongom v. Dep't of Health, 124 Wash. App. 935 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “100; RCW 34.05.446(3), .449, .461(4), .510-.598; ch.”
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to the authority delegated to the agency by RCW 34.05.446(2), other forms of discovery shall not be available in proceedings before the agency.”
Lang v. Dental Quality Assurance Comm'n, 156 P.3d 919 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 34.05.446. A court has wide discretion when ordering pretrial discovery, and this court will not disturb this type of decision absent an abuse of discretion.”
Abdullatif Arishi v. Washington State Univ., 385 P.3d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “434 (providing for at least seven days’ advance written notice of hearing, with prescribed minimal contents), with Model Act § 4-206; compare RCW 34.05.446(1) (authorizing the presiding officer to issue subpoenas and protective orders and providing that “[a] subpoena may be…”
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 60 P.3d 99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 34.05.446(1); WAC 391-08-300. Mr. Christensen retained the general right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and submit rebuttal evidence.”
Pappas v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 146 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 34.05.446(1); see Chmela v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 88 Wn.”
Pappas v. State, Emp. Sec. Dept., 146 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[6] RCW 34.05.446(1); see Chmela v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 88 Wash.”
Eric Johnson, Apps/cross-resp v. Wa State Conservation Comm., Resps/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “The presiding officer at a hearing “may issue subpoenas” and “may condition use of discovery on a showing of necessity and unavailability by other means.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.446(1) — 5 cases
Abdullatif Arishi v. Washington State Univ., 385 P.3d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “434 (providing for at least seven days’ advance written notice of hearing, with prescribed minimal contents), with Model Act § 4-206; compare RCW 34.05.446(1) (authorizing the presiding officer to issue subpoenas and protective orders and providing that “[a] subpoena may be…”
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 60 P.3d 99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 34.05.446(1); WAC 391-08-300. Mr. Christensen retained the general right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and submit rebuttal evidence.”
Pappas v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 146 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 34.05.446(1); see Chmela v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 88 Wn.”
Pappas v. State, Emp. Sec. Dept., 146 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[6] RCW 34.05.446(1); see Chmela v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 88 Wash.”
Eric Johnson, Apps/cross-resp v. Wa State Conservation Comm., Resps/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “The presiding officer at a hearing “may issue subpoenas” and “may condition use of discovery on a showing of necessity and unavailability by other means.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.446(2) — 3 cases
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to the authority delegated to the agency by RCW 34.05.446(2), other forms of discovery shall not be available in proceedings before the agency.”
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to the authority delegated to the agency by RCW 34.05.446(2), other forms of discovery shall not be available in proceedings before the agency.”
Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 60 P.3d 99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.446(3) — 6 cases
Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001). “The Right to Call Witnesses RCW 34.05.446 gives both the presiding officer and counsel for parties the right to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend the hearing.”
Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash. 2d 516 (Wash. 2001). “The Right to Call Witnesses RCW 34.05.446 gives both the presiding officer and counsel for parties the right to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend the hearing.”
Ongom v. State, Dept. of Health, 104 P.3d 29 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “100; RCW 34.05.446(3), .449, .461(4), .510-.598; WAC 246-10; See also Nguyen, 144 Wash.”
Ongom v. Dep't of Health, 124 Wash. App. 935 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “100; RCW 34.05.446(3), .449, .461(4), .510-.598; ch.”
Wash. Trucking Ass'ns v. Emp't Sec. Dep't (Wash. 2017).
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.