Lund v. Donahoe
227 Ariz. 572
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- guardianship petition for Bradford Lund; court appointed examiner Dr. Willson to evaluate competency; records-only subpoena to Willson sought five years of reports; Willson resigned citing burden; court sua sponte set show-cause for sanctions; handcuffing of Sannes during direct contempt hearing; court sanctions against four attorneys for Rule 45 violations; appellate special-action petitions challenge sanctions and contempt; Supreme issue is whether court abused discretion and violated due-process and privilege rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena was per se improper | Petitioners: subpoena is proper for cross-examining an expert | Court: subpoena oppressive, harassing, and improper | Subpoena not per se improper; sanction abuse reversed |
| Whether communications among counsel were privileged | Privilege protects CIA communications and discussion of issuance | Court: sought conduct, not communications; privilege waived by CIA | Communications within CIA are privileged; privilege not waived |
| Whether due process was afforded in sanctions/contempt proceedings | Due process required notice and opportunity to respond to privilege issue | Court conducted immediate confinement and sanctions without proper briefing | Sanctions and contempt findings vacated for lack of due process |
| Whether contempt finding was lawful given privilege and due process issues | Contempt should not be imposed where privilege bars disclosure and due process was lacking | Court found contempt for noncompliance with order | Contempt finding vacated; sanctions reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Amer. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 507 (App. 2009) (records necessary for testing bias and cross-examining expert)
- State ex rel. Goddard v. W. Union Fin. Serv., Inc., 216 Ariz. 361 (App. 2007) (limits of overbroad subpoenas; privilege considerations)
- Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, Harper, Christian & Dichter, P.C., 179 Ariz. 552 (App. 1993) (due process required notice before sanctions; form of sanctions)
- Indep. Redist. v. Fields, 206 Ariz. 130 (App. 2003) (common interest doctrine and privilege)
- Rivers v. Solley, 217 Ariz. 528 (App. 2008) (sanctions due process considerations)
- Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231 (App. 2003) (due process in sanctions and contempt)
- Ong Hing v. Thurston, 101 Ariz. 92 (1959) (due process requirements for contempt)