250 P.3d 215
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Cosper's car collision with the Moras; arbitration awarded to the Moras and Cosper appealed the award on Aug 6, 2010
- Cosper did not disclose any expert witnesses at the time of the appeal
- Rule 77(g)(3) allows 80 days of post-appeal discovery; Rule 77(g)(4) permits a good-cause extension
- Moras failed to provide vehicle for inspection; Cosper's expert relied on exemplar cars for analysis
- Cosper disclosed the expert on Oct 7 and report on Oct 15, within 80-day window; Moras moved to strike on Oct 19
- Trial court struck the disclosures; Cosper sought relief via special action; Arizona Court of Appeals granted relief
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 77(g)(3) authorizes 80 days of discovery after appeal | Cosper argues discovery proceeds under Rule 77(g)(3) | Moras contend Rule 77(g)(4) requires good cause | Rule 77(g) allows 80 days of discovery without showing good cause |
| Whether late disclosures require prejudice or court permission | Cosper asserts no prejudice and timely disclosure | Moras argue late disclosures could prejudice trial | Preclusion not warranted absent prejudicial impact that cannot be cured |
| Whether the court properly balanced discovery rights with arbitration efficiency | Cosper contends discovery should be allowed within 80 days | Moras contend the court may impose limits for good cause | Rule 77 read to maximize meritorious resolution without unduly restricting discovery |
| Whether the court erred in applying Rule 77(g) to permit supplemental disclosures without need for good cause | Cosper argues no separate good-cause showing required | Moras rely on Rule 77(g)(4) discretionary standard | Rule 77(g) permits supplemental disclosures within 80 days without extra good-cause showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231 (Ariz. App. 2003) (limits and discretion in discovery; preserve meritorious decisions)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. O'Toole, 182 Ariz. 284 (Ariz. 1995) (procedural rules interpreted to maximize likelihood of merits decision)
- Rivers v. Solley, 217 Ariz. 528 (Ariz. App. 2008) (late discovery considerations; prejudice analysis)
- Lane v. City of Tempe, 202 Ariz. 306 (Ariz. 2002) (arbitration discovery framework and procedural balance)
- Valler v. Lee, 190 Ariz. 391 (Ariz. App. 1997) (trial de novo right; discovery efficiency)