Washington discovery deadlines: 30 days, 40 for a defendant, and admissions must stand alone

Washington procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026

Washington's periods sit between the common 30-day and 45-day models, and two of its formatting rules are strict enough to matter.

Thirty days, or forty for a defendant

Interrogatories — CR 33(a): the party served "shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 40 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant."

Document requests — CR 34(b)(3)(A): the responding party "shall serve a written response within 30 days after the service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 40 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant."

Requests for admission — CR 36(a): "The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves … a written answer or objection."

Forty days is Washington's own figure — Georgia and North Carolina use 45, Virginia 28. And as in Georgia, the defendant's extension covers interrogatories and document requests but not requests for admission, which carry the automatic-admission consequence.

Both CR 33(a) and CR 34(b)(3)(A) allow the parties to stipulate, or the court to order, a different period.

Answers go in the blank spaces

CR 33(a) contains a formatting requirement:

Interrogatories shall be so arranged that after each separate question there shall appear a blank space reasonably calculated to enable the answering party to place the written response.

That obligation falls on the propounding party — the interrogatories must be drafted with room to answer in them. The rule then addresses what happens where the responding party chooses to answer elsewhere.

Pennsylvania has a comparable rule at Pa.R.C.P. 4006(a)(1), which requires answers to be inserted in the spaces provided. Washington puts the drafting burden on the party serving.

Requests for admission must be a standalone document

CR 36(a):

Requests for admission shall not be combined in the same document with any other form of discovery.

A single set of papers combining interrogatories, document requests and requests for admission — routine in many states — does not comply with the Washington rule.

The reason is protective: because unanswered admissions are admitted automatically, the rule keeps them from being buried inside a longer discovery package. California reaches the same result in CCP 2033.060(h), which says no party shall combine requests for admission in a single document with any other method of discovery.

Each matter of which an admission is requested must be separately set forth. Requests may be served on the plaintiff after the summons and complaint are served or the complaint is filed, whichever occurs first, and on any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint.

When discovery may begin

CR 33(a) permits interrogatories to be served, without leave, "upon the plaintiff after the summons and a copy of the complaint are served upon the defendant, or the complaint is filed, whichever shall first occur," and on any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint.

That formulation reflects Washington's unusual commencement rule. Under CR 3(a) an action may be commenced by service alone, with nothing filed — so the discovery trigger has to account for a case that exists without a court file. The guide on responding to a Washington complaint covers that.

There is no Rule 26(f)-style conference gate; discovery may begin as soon as the trigger is met.

Scope

CR 26(b)(1) sets the scope: parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of documents and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.

CR 26(b)(4) covers trial preparation materials, and CR 26(b)(5) expert discovery. CR 26(c) supplies protective orders, available on motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and requires certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer.

Two subsections are worth knowing about because they cost money or create ongoing work.

CR 26(b)(7) — treating health care providers. "The party seeking discovery from a treating health care provider shall pay a reasonable fee for the reasonable time spent in responding to the discovery." If no fee is agreed in advance, the discovery goes ahead and the provider or any party may later ask the court to set the amount, payable by the party who sought the discovery. The subsection does not apply to records produced under RCW 70.02 or a similar statute.

CR 26(e) — supplementation. A party who has responded to a request "has a duty to seasonably supplement or correct that response with information thereafter acquired," and the supplementation "shall clearly set forth the information being supplemented or corrected." Failure to do so subjects the party to "such terms and conditions as the trial court may deem appropriate."

That is a broader duty than the federal rule's, which is limited to responses later learned to be incomplete or incorrect. Washington attaches it to information acquired afterwards, full stop.

Sanctions

CR 37(a) provides the motion to compel, including the conferral requirement, and CR 37(a)(4) the award of expenses.

CR 37(b) sets the orders available where a party fails to obey a discovery order — deeming facts established, refusing to allow claims or defenses, striking pleadings, staying proceedings, dismissing the action, rendering default judgment, and contempt.

CR 37(d) allows sanctions where a party fails entirely to serve answers or objections to interrogatories, or a written response to a request for inspection, after proper service — without a prior order.

How Washington compares

	Washington	Oregon	California	Georgia
Interrogatory response	30 days (40 for a defendant)	no interrogatories	30 days	30 days (45 for a defendant)
Document response	30 days (40 for a defendant)	per ORCP 43	30 days	30 days (45 for a defendant)
Admissions response	30 days — no defendant extension	per ORCP 45	30 days	30 days — no defendant extension
Late response effect	ordinary; CR 37	ordinary; ORCP 46	all objections waived, including privilege	ordinary
Admissions deemed admitted	automatically	automatically	motion required — CCP 2033.280(b)	automatically
Admissions must stand alone	yes — CR 36(a)	no	yes — CCP 2033.060(h)	no
Blank answer spaces required	yes — CR 33(a)	n/a	no	no

The California column is worth reading across: California is the one west-coast system where a late response waives privilege automatically, and the one where a deemed admission requires a motion. Neither is true in Washington or Oregon.

A short checklist

Check whether you're the defendant and were served at the outset — that's 40 days, not 30.
Requests for admission are always 30 days, and they admit themselves.
Serve admissions as their own document. CR 36(a) forbids combining them.
Leave blank spaces in your interrogatories — CR 33(a) puts that on the propounding party.
Stipulate if you need more time — both CR 33(a) and CR 34(b)(3)(A) expressly allow it.
A total failure to respond is separately sanctionable under CR 37(d), without a prior order.

Where these rules live

Superior court local rules add case-scheduling requirements on top of these. This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice.

How this guide is sourced. Every procedural statement here is drawn from the text of the rules named above, each of which is reproduced verbatim on its own page on this site. Quoted rule language appears in quotation marks or block quotes; everything else is original writing. Last verified August 17, 2026.

This page explains what the rules say. It is legal information, not legal advice, and it cannot tell you how a rule applies to your situation. Deadlines are often short and some are not extendable — if the outcome matters, talk to a lawyer or your court’s self-help center.