§53.3.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§53.3.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

There have been no published opinions in Washington that have interpreted CR 53.3 or defined what constitutes "good cause" for the appointment of a special discovery master, what factors should be considered in determining the compensation of the special discovery master, the scope of authority of the special discovery master, or the resolution of disputes or objections concerning the appointment of a special discovery master. Federal decisions interpreting Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 may provide some general guidance, with the caveat that Fed. R. CIV. P. 53 is much broader in scope than CR 53.3.

Federal courts have long recognized the unique nature of the special master's role in civil litigation and the master's authority and position as a judicial officer. A special master is a "surrogate" of the court "and in that sense the service performed is an important public duty of high order in much the same way as is serving in the Judiciary" Louisiana v. Mississippi, 466 U.S. 921, 921, 104 S. Ct. 1701, 80 L. Ed. 2d 175 (1984) (Burger, C.J., dissenting in part on an unrelated issue); see also In re Gilbert, 276 U.S. 6,9,48 S. Ct. 210,72 L. Ed. 441 (1928) (observing that accepting appointment as a special master means assuming "the duties and obligations of a judicial officer"); York Int'l Bldg., Inc. v. Chaney, 527 F.2d 1061,1068 (9th Cir. 1975) (noting the "well established principle" that special masters administering bankruptcy estates "are not acting as private persons, but as officers of the court.").

Indeed, in this era of complex litigation, special masters may, subject to judicial review, be called upon to perform a broad range of judicial functions including supervising discovery, issuing stipulations of fact, and in exceptional circumstances, hearing and making recommendations with regard to motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Cordoza v. Pac. States Steel Corp., 320 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 934 F.2d 1064,1073 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also 9 James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice §§53.40-53.49 (3d ed. 2013) (listing specific types of cases).

The use of special masters in federal courts is not limited to pretrial proceedings. See, e.g., Cordoza, 320 F.3d at 995 (the appointment of a special master to oversee development of property in postjudgment ERISA proceeding "continues a long tradition, with its roots in equity, of using special masters in...