State v. Simon, 270 P.3d 887

Real parties in interest were charged with DUI pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1) and had BAC testing pending from blood samples.
The trial judge scheduled pre-trial conferences, noting pending BAC results, and repeatedly reset the conferences.
The judge precluded BAC testing results in all cases except Jimenez for failure to complete testing by disclosure deadlines.
State relied on State ex rel. Thomas v. Newell to argue the judge abused discretion by excluding uncompleted BAC results.
Arizona Supreme Court rules provide a final disclosure deadline and extensions for scientific testing, not blanket preclusion.
Local Pima County JP Court Rule 1.5 purports to govern discovery, but cannot override Rule 15 requirements; the court’s authority is limited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether precluding uncompleted BAC results was abuse of discretion	State argues Newell allows disclosure when testing is completed; preclusion was improper.	Respondent contends no completed testing means no disclosure; preclusion is permissible.	Abuse of discretion; exclude BAC results vacated.
Whether Rule 15.1/15.6 governs extension to complete testing	State contends extensions under Rule 15.6 allow completion and disclosure timelines.	Judge followed Newell limitation that uncompleted testing cannot be compelled; no extension applied.	Extension procedures under Rule 15.6 should have permitted time; error to preclude.
Whether local Rule 1.5 can override Rule 15.1/15.6 results in pre-trial discovery	State argues local rule supports flexible discovery control.	Judge relied on local rule but Rule 15 controls disclosure; local rule cannot override.	Local rule cannot override Rule 15; error to rely on it for blanket preclusion.
Whether the special action jurisdiction was properly exercised	State asserts statewide legal issue warrants direct review to correct ongoing problems.	Respondent challenges jurisdiction as unusual but still reviewable.	Special action jurisdiction accepted in part; some orders vacated.

State ex rel. Newell v. Superior Court, 221 Ariz. 112 (App. 2009) (Rule 15.1 limits to completed testing; may not compel undisclosed results)
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton, 228 Ariz. 156 (2011) (Rule 15.1 applies to material within prosecutor's possession or control)
State ex rel. Romley v. Martin, 203 Ariz. 46 (App. 2002) (special actions discretionary jurisdiction)
Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599 (1984) (jurisdictional limits; when no plain remedy by appeal)
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court, 138 Ariz. 500 (1984) (local procedural rules in tension with state rules; control of discovery)
Springfield v. Green, 132 Ariz. 468 (1982) (references to appellate procedure and discovery context)
Fields v. State, 196 Ariz. 580 (App. 1999) (sanctions and discovery rules interplay)
Roper v. State, 225 Ariz. 273 (App. 2010) (sanctions; discovery procedures)
Green v. Nygaard, 213 Ariz. 460 (App. 2006) (scope of appellate review and discovery decisions)
Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467 (1985) (exceptional direct review when statewide issue implicated)