Preserving evidence in Washington
Verified against the loaded rules before this page was written: Washington's CR 37 has NO federal-2015-style ESI-sanctions subsection — the corroboration gate pins the phrase's absence — so the duty is common-law anchored and enforced through the general machinery. That is the honest shape of the law here.
The duty is common-law anchored
Washington's civil rules contain no federal-2015-style ESI-sanctions provision — CR 37 has no (e)-equivalent and CR 26 no ESI carve-out (the corroboration gate pins the absence). The duty to preserve relevant evidence when litigation is reasonably anticipated comes from the common law, and its breach is policed through the courts' inherent power and the CR 26(g)/CR 37 machinery.
ESI is discoverable through CR 34
CR 34 reaches electronically stored information as a production category — the request/response mechanics (30 days; the defendant's 40-day initial window) carry ESI like any other documents.
The sanctions line
Discovery-violation sanctions run through CR 26(g) and CR 37 — with the Supreme Court's trilogy as the doctrine: Fisons (the certification means real compliance), Burnet (on-the-record consideration of lesser sanctions before the harshest), and Magaña (default for willful violations is real). Pointers — verify before citing.
The hold, practically
A written hold identifying custodians, sources (including ESI systems), and the suspension of routine destruction is the standard professional practice the common-law duty implies — the platform shows the elements; scoping a hold for YOUR matter is judgment.
The sanctions trilogy (Fisons · Burnet · Magaña) are POINTERS — verify before citing. Read the machinery: CR 26 · CR 34 · CR 37
TrialVector is software, not a lawyer and not a law firm, and is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. It provides information of a general nature about the law and legal procedures — not legal advice — and forms no attorney-client relationship.