Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 50.13.070 (2026)
Availability of records or information to parties to judicial or administrative proceedings—Discovery proceedings—Subpoenas
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Information or records deemed private and confidential under this chapter shall be available to parties to judicial or formal administrative proceedings only upon a written finding by the presiding officer that the need for the information or records in the proceeding outweighs any reasons for the privacy and confidentiality of the information or records. Information or records deemed private and confidential under this chapter shall not be available in discovery proceedings unless the court in which the action has been filed has made the finding specified above. A judicial or administrative subpoena directed to the employment security department must contain this finding. A subpoena for records or information under this section must be submitted in a manner prescribed by the employment security department. The employment security department may recover costs of responding to subpoenas, consistent with 20 C.F.R. Sec. 603.8 (2012), for proceedings where the employment security department is not a party.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: State v. Eppens, 633 P.2d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Eppens, 633 P.2d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Because punishing those who seek to abuse the benefits provided by the act clearly aids in its effective administration, the trial court, the prosecuting attorney, and even the members of a jury would be such persons and *130 thus exempt from the confidentiality provisions.”
Garcia v. Stemilt Ag Servs. LLC (E.D. Wash. 2020). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 50.13.070 . ESD shall produce: 11 A.”
Boards of Trs. of the Cement Masons & Plasterers Health & Welfare Trust v. Sound Floors Gypsum Concrete LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “Instead, they say—in a single 3 sentence, without explanation—the Court “is required by RCW 50.13.070” to compel 4 such documents.”
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.