Cited by

But a hearing is not required “[w]here willfulness or bad faith or fault of the party is clear from the record[.]” (citing Link v. Wabash R.R.

at 305 ( Birds Int’l ); (noting superior court “clearly abused its discretion in failing to set aside the judgment .

which held that a party should not suffer default due to an attorney’s conduct without a hearing.

(quotation omitted); (“[d]ue process does not require that a hearing be held in every case,” even where “sanctions of dismissal or entry of default judgment” are entered); Montgomery Ward & Co., (“The heavier the sanction contemplated, the more deliberate the process

“Due process does not require that a hearing be held in every case” prior to imposing Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions, and when the “fault of the party is clear from the record a hearing may not be necessary.”

However, “[w]here the party is not guilty of misconduct in the discovery process he should not suffer default as a result of his counsel’s guilty conduct.”

“The sanction that is appropriate and the process that is due depends on the circumstances and the exercise of trial court discretion.” Montgomery Ward & , , (“Due process does not require that a hearing be held in every case,” even where “sanctions of dismissal or entry of default judgment” are entered.).

order, fundamental fairness requires that the [trial] court hold an evidentiary hearing prior to entry of default judgment or dismissal.” accord Birds Int’l Corp., 135 Ariz. at 547, 662 P.2d at 1054.

counsel as opposed to appellant”); Birds Int’l, 135 Ariz. at 547, 662 P.2d at 1054.

(public policy favors a hearing so court can determine guilt of party).

We reverse and remand for the purpose of having the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing as required by Birds Int’l , , and Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd.

Birds Int’l Corp. v. Arizona Maintenance Co., supra n. 1.