Cited by

the name, address, and telephone number of each witness whom the disclosing party expects to call at trial”); ¶ 23 (App. 2008) (“[T]he obligation to disclose under Rule 26.1 and the related discovery rules .

See McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare Mgmt., Inc., ¶ 26 (App. 2020) (concluding “trial court abused its discretion in permitting the undisclosed opinions into evidence”) (citations omitted), vacated in part on other grounds, ¶ 36 (Ariz. 2022); ¶ 1 (App. 2008) (affirming dismissal of “personal injury claim for failing to disclose the existence of a prior accident resulting in emergency room treatment”).

¶ 11 (2008); see also Montgomery Ward & Co.

that the court has considered and rejected lesser sanctions as a penalty.’” ¶ 13 (App. 2008) (quoting Wayne Cook Enters, Inc. v. Fain Props.

Holdings, L.L.C., -97, 410, ¶¶ 66, 113 (App. 2012); ¶ 11 (App. 2008).

They are not meant to be used as a “weapon” for attacking another party’s case, see id., and courts must use a common-sense approach in applying the rules, ¶ 13 (App. 2008), while keeping in mind the specific facts of the case, Zimmerman, 204 Ariz. at 235, ¶ 14.

We review a superior court’s orders striking pleadings for an abuse of discretion; however, a court’s discretion when striking pleadings or entering default judgments “is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” ¶ 27 (App. 2010) (internal quotation omitted) ( ¶ 11 (App. 2008)).

But "when a court imposes severe sanctions such as dismissal, striking a pleading, or entering a default judgment, 'its discretion is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.'" Lewis, 222 Ariz. at 323, ¶ 18 ( ¶ 11 (App. 2008)).

ANALYSIS ¶10 Plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion in granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss.6 ¶11 “On appeal from a dismissal based upon discovery violations, we will affirm a trial court’s order unless the record reflects a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 11

¶ 11, (citing Wayne Cook Enter., Inc. v. Fain Prop.

-31, ¶ 13, -73 (App. 2008).

-31, ¶ 13, -73 (App. 2008) (citation omitted).

But when a court imposes severe sanctions such as dismissal, striking a pleading, or entering a default judgment, “its discretion ‘is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.’” see Groat, 180 Ariz. at 346, 884 P.2d at 232; Poleo v. Grandview Equities, Ltd.

See, -31, ¶¶ 13-14 , -73 (App.2008); ¶¶ 20-23

(affirming dismissal of action when defendant’s prior accident came to light on morning of trial).

¶ 11 , (citing Wayne Cook Enters., Inc. v. Fain Prop.

386 , ¶ 11 , (holding that “[o]n appeal from a dismissal based upon discovery violations, we will affirm a trial court’s order unless the record reflects a clear abuse of discretion”).

i. Fault of Party or Counsel ¶ 22 “[W]hen the trial court provides findings on discovery issues, we owe them ‘great deference.’” ¶ 15 , (citation omitted).

(upholding trial court’s dismissal of persona] injury case, after an evidentiary *238 hearing, based on plaintiff’s failure to disclose a prior accident that defendant discovered shortly before trial).