Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

5 Neversv. Fireside, Inc., 133 Wn.2d 804, 809, 947 P.2d 721 (1997).
6 Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494, 933 P.2d 1036
(1997).
7 State v. Mankin, 158 Wn. App. 111, 118, 241 P.3d 421 (2010) (quoting
State v. Christensen, 153 Wn.2d 186, 193, 102 P.3d 789 (2004)).
«'8 155 Wn. App. 24, 39, 226 P.3d 263 (2010).
-8-
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 9

distinguish the cases Marin does cite on the basis that they involve documents

rather than conversations.9 Following Smith, we conclude that Marin's

conversations with his supervisor were "private" under RCW 9.73.030. A

violation of the privacy act requires exclusion of "all evidence" of the contents of

the illegally recorded conversations.10 Thus, the trial court did not err in

excluding the recordings and other evidence regarding the meetings.

Second, Marin argues that even if the trial court properly excluded the

recordings, it erred in sanctioning his attorney, Mary Ruth Mann. But the record

contradicts Marin's assertion that his attorneys produced the recordings

"seasonably." An attorney at Mann's firm, Mark Rose, acknowledged that he

knew of the recordings 10 days before the deposition and knew that they were

responsive to the County's discovery requests. Rose then told Mann about the

recordings. Rose deposed Sagnis, then waited 6 more days to produce the

recordings. The trial court acted within its discretion in sanctioning Mann based

on this conduct. The other facts Marin recites are irrelevant and obfuscatory.

While it sanctioned Mann $5,000, the trial court denied the County's

request to dismiss the case. Marin contends, again without meaningful support,