Discovery delivery failures prompt multiple dismissals, judge says court will update contact info

At a Lake Forest Park Municipal Court calendar hearing, the judge granted motions to suppress or dismiss multiple infractions after prosecutors said they had not received timely discovery required under the court's infraction rules.

The moves came after defense attorneys told the court they had mailed or faxed notices of appearance and discovery requests to the city and to a city fax number listed on the municipal website, but prosecutors said those filings went to the city mail room or otherwise were not routed to the prosecuting attorney’s office. The court cited IRLJ 3.1(b) (infraction discovery rules) in granting suppression in several matters.

Why it matters: defense counsel said untimely or missing discovery deprived defendants of the materials needed to prepare for contested hearings; prosecutors said the documents had been sent but sometimes to a general city mail room or an outdated fax number. The court signaled it will update public contact instructions so discovery goes directly to the prosecutor’s office and advised counsel to use the prosecutor’s dedicated email address.

Courtroom details and decisions The court repeatedly found that discovery had not been received in time and granted suppression or dismissal in multiple cases after defense counsel showed fax confirmations or other proof of service. The judge noted the infraction rule that “untimely discovery shall be suppressed only upon a showing of prejudice” but concluded the defense had shown prejudice where discovery did not arrive in the prosecutor’s file in advance of the hearing.

Prosecutor Miss McDonald told the court she and staff have started asking attorneys to email discovery to prosecutor@shorelinelaw.gov, and she provided an efax number in the Zoom chat as an alternate. Defense counsel said they had used the contact information printed on the Lake Forest Park website and produced fax confirmations showing they had sent notices to the city fax number (206-364-6521). The judge said she would work with the prosecutor to update the court website and instructed parties that emailing the prosecutor’s office is “the best way to make sure that we don't have any issues.”

Examples and scope The problem recurred throughout the calendar; defense counsel from several firms — including Dan Sammis, Rene Rochandl, Sebastian Miller and others — presented discovery confirmations and moved to suppress under IRLJ 3.1(b). The court granted suppression or dismissal in multiple matters after finding the prosecution had not provided the enumerated discovery within the required timeframe. The court also allowed the prosecution to cure some matters by re-serving discovery when appropriate but otherwise suppressed evidence that arrived too late for a fair defense.

Discussion vs. formal action Discussion: Attorneys debated whether a short continuance would cure prejudice in specific cases and whether the court website should be amended to list an explicit prosecutor-only email or fax. Prosecutors said they had recently begun asking for emailed discovery to avoid the mail-room problem. Directions: The judge directed court staff to coordinate with the prosecuting attorney’s office to update public contact information and encouraged lawyers to use prosecutor@shorelinelaw.gov or the provided efax number to ensure delivery. Decision: The court granted motions to suppress or dismiss in several individual cases after finding discovery was not timely received; some calendar items were continued or re-noticed where the court found that a continuance would fairly cure the defect.

What happens next The judge said she would work with the city prosecutor to revise the court website contact information and recommended that defense counsel send discovery directly to the prosecutor's email or efax to avoid future suppression motions. Attorneys who had matters dismissed or suppressed may seek to refile or to reopen by showing cause under court rules. The court also preserved parties' rights to appeal the suppressions.