Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

The parties tried the case over 15 days in September 2014. During voir

dire, juror 71 disclosed on his questionnaire and in response to further questions

from Marin that he was a "[g]ood friend with a King County prosecutor." The trial

court declined to dismiss juror 71 at that point.

3 Ch. 49.60 RCW.
4 Ch. 9.73 RCW.
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 7

During trial, the trial court struck a statement by Marin's coworker Lloyd

Holman that he heard from unidentified coworkers that Marin had complained

against Alenduff. The court had conditioned that statement's admission on Marin

"t[ying] it up" with evidence of the speakers' identities and the statements'

timing—evidence Marin did not provide. Later, the trial court allowed the

County's expert, Dr. McClung, to testify that Marin had "adjustment disorder with

paranoid personality traits." But the court excluded any "comment on credibility"

from McClung, such as testimony that Marin "is likely to perceive harassment."

At the close of evidence, the court granted the County's request for a

directed verdict in part. It dismissed the retaliation component of Marin's hostile

work environment claim but allowed the jury to decide the rest of his hostile work

environment claim and his accommodation claim. The jury then rendered

unanimous verdicts for the County on those claims. The court awarded the

County $14,378.37 in costs. Marin appeals.

ANALYSIS

Exclusion of Recorded Conversations and Resulting Discovery Sanctions

Marin challenges the trial court's exclusion of evidence of his

conversations with his D Crew supervisor, James Sagnis, and its imposition of

sanctions against his counsel for delayed disclosure of recordings of those