Appeals panel hears arguments in Hoyt v. Skagit County over denied continuance and struck declaration

An appellate panel heard oral arguments in Hoyt v. Skagit County about whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied a continuance and struck a plaintiff declaration that opposing counsel says merely summarized deposition testimony.

The issue before the panel centers on procedural and evidentiary rulings in the trial court: plaintiff’s counsel told the judges the First Amendment complaint was filed in December 2021, the county did not move for summary judgment until September 2024, and the matter was not heard until January 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel argued depositions the plaintiff expected to complete would have shown that the county’s HR director was the primary actor in the events at issue and that excluding the late-filed declaration prejudiced the plaintiff’s case.

Respondent’s counsel Janie Freeman, representing Skagit County, told the panel the case raises three claims: a disparate-treatment discrimination claim under RCW 49.60, a retaliation claim under RCW 49.60, and a state wrongful-termination tort claim. Freeman argued the plaintiff’s own deposition transcript was already in the record, that Burnett factors typically apply to excluding new witnesses or expert testimony rather than a party repackaging its own testimony, and that the plaintiff waived any on-the-record Burnett argument by failing to identify the factors to the trial court or on reconsideration.

Freeman said even if the court erred, the alleged error was harmless because the transcript and related materials were before the trial court and, she argued, the record lacks facts showing animus or that the termination decision was substantially motivated by the plaintiff’s medical conditions. "There are no facts in the declaration that create a question of fact suggesting that the judge who terminated Ms. Hoyt's employment ... had any sort of animus toward plaintiff," Freeman said.

A judge pressed the plaintiff’s counsel on timing and prejudice, asking what evidence would have been the "game changer" had the continuance been granted. Plaintiff’s counsel replied that later depositions — including testimony by a witness identified as Lewis and others — would have shown the HR director’s central role and that communications and meeting scheduling reflected targeted treatment tied in part to a separate Goodwill incident and union-identified leave issues.

Counsel for Hoyt said scheduling problems arose from heavy trial dockets, overlapping case calendars, and an unforeseen family hospice matter that required a brief continuance; counsel also said efforts to arrange dates after trials cleared were met with no response from defense counsel. Freeman countered that the parties had an agreed discovery schedule and that much of the background material referenced in plaintiff filings concerned events years earlier and collateral matters unrelated to the statutory standards for disparate treatment.

The panel also debated whether the trial court conducted, or was required to record, the Burnett analysis (the three-factor inquiry used when excluding testimony for discovery violations) before striking the declaration. Freeman argued the cases applying Burnett involve new witnesses or expert opinions and that the plaintiff did not ask the trial court to apply the Burnett factors below, which supports a waiver finding. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained the trial-court transcript and rulings show the exclusion occurred without the necessary analysis and that excluding the declaration caused prejudice.

The court recessed at the end of oral argument; no ruling was announced from the bench during the session.