[WSBARP] [WSBAPT] ER 904 amendment eff. September 1, 2026

[Eric Nelsen]

I remember being surprised some years ago when a lawyer served me an ER 904 notice and documents about 4 months before trial. He pointed out that 30 days is a minimum notice, not maximum. True enough! So I think I would argue that your earlier ER 904 was already effective, and if no objection was filed within 14 days then the documents are already deemed admissible regardless of the later rule change.

Or that’d be my argument to the judge anyway...

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Andrekita Silva
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 8:18 PM
To: WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Cc: WSBA Real Property Listserv (wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com) <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBAPT] ER 904 amendment eff. September 1, 2026

Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


September 17, 2026

Eric,

Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention. This is a huge bummer. I have a parenting plan trial in Snohomish County that was supposed to go out in April, but was continued to August 10 so that GAL could conduct a final report.

On August 10, we were inexplicably continued to December 14.  I was already wondering if my prior ER 904 submittal (submitted for April) could simply be updated.  So much time has gone by, we now have more police reports. Although our prior ER 904 submittal had important text messages, it also included various police reports dealing with domestic violence. We got some through a Public Disclosure request and others by subpoena.  Police reports would not be hearsay under 803(6).

But, it looks like now we must go have law enforcement certify the records?

I'm wondering if documents submitted under prior ER 904 prior to 9/1 (and even prior to 30 days before that) would be admissible or if they would fall under the new rule?

Andrekita Silva
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940
Seattle, Washington 98101-2509
206-224-8288
ak at seattle-silvalaw.com<mailto:ak at seattle-silvalaw.com>


On 2026/09/17 09:51 AM, Eric Nelsen wrote:
I just started a trial prep for a trial next month and looked at ER
904--discovered it was just amended, effective September 1. The old
catch-all provision of ER 904(6) is gone, and now every document has
to fit one of the now-twelve enumerated categories.

Looks like the statewide judges' association lobbied to get sub (6)
eliminated because it was--in their view--being abused by lawyers
designating hundreds of documents under sub (6), and it generated so
many objections it caused more time and work for the court than it was
intended to save.

I am bummed. It was nice to be able to get copies of emails and the
like easily admitted by that process. The scope of the twelve
categories is quite a bit more limited than what was possible under
the old sub (6).

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen

Sayre Law Offices, PLLC

1417 31st Ave South

Seattle WA 98144-3909

206-625-0092

eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>
***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***
_______________________________________________
WSBAPT mailing list
WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20260918/a2856ad5/attachment.html>