v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997). However, the court may impose only the least severe sanction that will be adequate to serve its purpose in issuing a sanction. Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 355-56, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). A trial court may impose only the most severe discovery sanctions upon a showing that (1) the discovery violation was willful or deliberate, (2) the violation substantially prejudiced the opponent’s ability to prepare for trial, and (3) the court explicitly considered less severe sanctions. Burnet, 131 Wn.2d at 494, 496-97. Discovery sanctions that trigger consideration of the Burnet factors include exclusion of witness testimony. Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 690, 132 P.3d 115 (2006) (<HOLDING>). ¶17 Findings regarding the Burnet factors
holding that while imposition of the most serious sanctions such as witness exclusion triggers a burnet analysis imposition of lesser sanctions like monetary compensation does not holding deathpenalty sanctions inappropriate where party inadvertently failed to comply with courts order and nothing in the record  even approaches the flagrant bad faith or abuse necessary for the imposition of such sanctions holding that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond before imposition of rule 11 sanctions holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion