Cited by

¶ 14 (App. 2003) (“Factors supporting the exclusion of undisclosed evidence ‘gain strength as the trial nears.’”) (citation omitted).

¶11 When, as here, a motion in limine seeks to enforce discovery rules, “it is effectively a request for sanctions under” Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) and “must be considered and reviewed using the standards of Rules 26.1 and 37(c) and the cases that have applied them.” ¶ 12 (App. 2003).

P. 7.1(b)(2); ¶ 21 (App. 2003).

at 60–61, ¶¶ 15–16, 20; ¶ 21 (App. 2003) (stating that a summary adjudication under Rule 7.1(b), "is not mandatory, and the failure to respond does not in and of itself authorize a judgment against the nonmoving party if the motion fails to demonstrate the movant's entitlement to the requested relief").

¶13 "The disclosure rules are designed to provide parties 'a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement —nothing more, nothing less.'" ¶ 13 (App. 2003) ( n.5 (1994)).

Co. v. O’Toole, ¶ 23 (App. 2013).2 Where a firm trial date has been set, “[f]actors supporting the exclusion of undisclosed evidence ‘gain strength as the trial nears.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).

“A factual determination about the scope of disclosure is for the trial court to make.” ¶ 22 (App. 2003).

we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”); (noting the law of the case doctrine “does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings, ‘[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s prior, nonfinal rulings’” ()).

¶12 Arizona’s disclosure rules are designed to ensure that each side receives a “reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial.” ¶ 13 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); see also Ariz. R. Civ.

On this record, they have not identified, much less demonstrated, any resulting prejudice from the arguably late disclosure.6 -36, ¶ 14 (App. 2003) (noting the disclosure rules “should be interpreted to maximize .

¶ 16 (App. 2003) (“[W]hen a trial has not been set, or is many months away, the opposing party is not necessarily prejudiced by some delay.”).

See King, 180 Ariz. at 278-79; ¶ 15 (App. 2003).

¶24 Arizona’s “disclosure rules are designed to provide parties ‘a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement – nothing more, nothing less.’” ¶ 13 (App. 2003) ().

¶ 16 (App. 2003) (court may bar the use of supplemental disclosure if dispositive motion is pending but it also may allow late disclosure if good cause is shown).

See Marquez at 441, ¶ 14 (trial court has broad discretion when ruling on disclosure matters); ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (“[I]f a trial is set and imminent, the possibility of prejudice increases.

P. 37(c)(1), (3); -36, ¶¶ 14, 16-17 (App. 2003).