Marquez v. Ortega
231 Ariz. 437
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Marquez, personal representative of the Estate of Alberto Marquez, sues Rosario Ortega and Hayden Farms, Inc. for wrongful death arising from a 2007 motor-vehicle collision.
- The court set and extended discovery deadlines in 2010; final disclosure and witness identifications were due in 2010–2011.
- Butland (California counsel) moved to extend deadlines in December 2010, acknowledging prior delays and lack of timely communication from local counsel.
- The trial court denied the extension request in January 2011, finding no good cause and noting that a trial date had not been set but discovery deadlines had expired.
- Marquez sought reconsideration; the court found a culprit hearing was not warranted and denied reconsideration.
- In 2011, Zachar became Marquez’s local counsel; Marquez later disclosed amended Rule 26.1 statements, which the court struck as untimely; trial proceeded with the admissible evidence, resulting in a verdict for the defendants and costs awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying further extension of discovery without a trial date. | Marquez argues denial harmed her due process and prevented completion of discovery. | Defendants contend extensions were unwarranted given lack of good cause and repeated delays. | No abuse of discretion; good cause not shown and delay prejudiced orderly proceedings. |
| Whether a culprit hearing was required before sanctions for late disclosures were imposed. | Marquez argues a culprit hearing should determine whether fault lay with counsel or party. | Defendants contend no culprit hearing was required under the circumstances. | No culprit hearing required; sanctions were appropriate given the circumstances and did not compel dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. O'Toole, 182 Ariz. 284 (Ariz. 1995) (harmless late disclosures may excuse sanctions; good cause required for relief)
- Lund v. Donahoe, 227 Ariz. 572 (Ariz. App. 2011) (culprit hearing depends on circumstances and sanctions; due process considerations)
- Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231 (Ariz. App. 2003) (sanctions and discovery limits; case-specific impact)
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court, 176 Ariz. 619 (Ariz. 1993) (heavier sanctions require more thorough proceedings)
- Precision Components, Inc. v. Harrison, 179 Ariz. 552 (Ariz. App. 1993) (due process considerations in sanctions; form of notice and opportunity to respond)