To Confer or Not to Confer? Understanding Conferral Requirements in Oregon and Washington
Both Oregon and Washington courts emphasize the need for attorneys to confer before filing certain motions, but their specific requirements differ. This post highlights the key distinctions between the Washington State Court Rules and Oregon’s Uniform Trial Court Rules.
Oregon: UTCR 5.010 and UTCR 5.100
In Oregon, conferral requirements are outlined in UTCR 5.010 and UTCR 5.100. Specifically, UTCR 5.100 governs the submission of proposed orders and judgments, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to review and agree on the form before it is submitted to the court. Here are the essential provisions of UTCR 5.100:
- Service Timing: Proposed judgments or orders must be served on each counsel at least 3 days before they are submitted to the court.
- Stipulation Option: Alternatively, the proposed order or judgment can be accompanied by a stipulation from each counsel indicating that there are no objections.
- Self-Represented Parties: If the party involved is self-represented, the documents must be served at least 7 days before submission, and a notice regarding the objection period must be included.
- Certificate of Readiness: Along with the proposed order or judgment, the moving party is required to file a Certificate of Readiness. This document confirms that the moving party has adhered to the notice requirements and that the matter is ready for the court’s consideration.
Washington: CR 26(i)
Washington’s approach, governed by CR 26(i), requires parties to confer in good faith before filing discovery-related motions. This rule underscores the importance of resolving disputes through communication rather than court intervention. Here’s how CR 26(i) functions:
- Good Faith Requirement: Parties are expected to make a genuine effort to resolve disputes related to discovery before filing motions.
- Scope: While CR 26(i) specifically applies to discovery disputes, Washington courts generally expect meaningful conferral in other types of disputes as well.
- Lack of Specific Rule for Orders: Unlike Oregon, Washington does not have a specific rule governing the submission of proposed orders or judgments.
Best Practices for Conferral
To comply with conferral requirements and streamline the litigation process, consider the following best practices:
- Document Your Efforts: Keep thorough records of all attempts to confer, including emails, phone calls, and meetings. This documentation is crucial if the court questions your good-faith efforts.
- Start Early: Initiate conferral as early as possible to avoid last-minute issues.
- Be Clear in Communication: Clearly outline your position and be open to resolving the issue when serving proposed orders or discussing disputes.
- Tailor Your Approach: For Oregon, ensure proposed orders are served on opposing counsel at least 3 days before submission (7 days for self-represented parties). For Washington, focus on informal resolution under CR 26(i), especially for discovery disputes.
- Follow Up: Document follow-up attempts if opposing counsel does not respond, demonstrating your commitment to resolving the issue outside of court.
Conclusion
Understanding and adhering to the conferral requirements in Oregon and Washington can significantly impact the efficiency and effectiveness of your litigation process. Both states emphasize the importance of communication, but the specific procedural requirements vary. By tailoring your approach to the relevant jurisdiction’s rules, you can navigate the legal landscape more effectively and keep your case on track.
If you have any questions about these requirements or need further assistance, please contact me at or 503-776-5427.
Posted by Samantha Toda.
