269 P.3d 1179
Ariz.2012Background
- Arbitration award against Cosper in Aug. 2010 following Moras' suit for car accident damages
- Cosper filed appeal from compulsory arbitration and a list of witnesses and exhibits in Oct. 2010
- Cosper subsequently supplemented with a biomechanical expert and report
- Superior Court struck the supplemental disclosures for lack of good cause under Rule 77(g)(4)
- Court of Appeals granted relief and held Rule 77 permits supplemental disclosures within 80 days without good cause or court permission
- Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify Rule 77(g) requirements and held that supplementation requires good cause and court permission
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a witness/exhibit list be filed with the appeal | Cosper contends Rule 77(g)(1) is satisfied and allows supplementation | Moras contend list must be filed with appeal and supplementation requires good cause | Yes, list must be filed with appeal; supplementation requires good cause and court permission |
| Does Rule 77(g)(4) authorize automatic supplementation without court approval | Cosper argues ongoing right to supplement within discovery window | Moras argue no automatic right to supplement | Supplementation requires good cause and court approval; no automatic right |
| How does Rule 77(g) interact with general discovery rules (Rules 26–37) | Cosper argues Rule 26.1 allows further disclosures | Rule 77(g) controls arbitration-disclosure, not general rules | Specific Rule 77(g) controls; discovery provisions do not override it |
| Is the court of appeals' interpretation of Rule 77(g) correct | Cosper relies on appellate interpretation allowing 80-day supplementation | Moras argue it conflicts with explicit filing requirement | Court of Appeals' interpretation rejected; need good cause and court permission |
Key Cases Cited
- Cosper v. Rea ex rel. County of Maricopa, 226 Ariz. 438 (App.2011) (rule permitting supplemental disclosures within 80 days without good cause rejected)
- In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton, 190 Ariz. 152 (1997) (newer, specific statutes govern when conflicts with general statutes)
- Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Action Marine Inc., 218 Ariz. 141 (2008) (textual interpretation avoids rendering terms meaningless)