Cited by

¶ 18 (App. 2009) (sanctions); ¶ 26 (App. 2000) (attorneys’ fees).

¶ 18 (App. 2009) (rulings on sanctions for discovery violations reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

We review the court’s decision concerning discovery violation sanctions for “a clear abuse of discretion.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009); see also Lenze, 160 Ariz. at 305 (explaining the court’s sanctions for discovery violations are entitled to 6 TOLLER v. TOLLER Decision of the Court deference on appeal).

Although we generally review an order imposing a sanction for an abuse of discretion, “the trial court’s discretion [to dismiss a complaint] is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (quoting Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ).

Co. v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.

Moreover, we believe such circumstances, if and when they arise, can be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the superior court’s broad discretion to remedy discovery violations, see, ¶ 18 (App. 2009), and to value property based upon the particular circumstances, see

We review these issues for an abuse of discretion.1 ¶ 13 (App. 2015); ¶ 18 (App. 2009); 351, ¶¶ 14, 32 (App. 1998)

¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citing Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ).

5 BEST WESTERN v. OAKLAND PARK Decision of the Court ¶ 20 (App. 2012) (default entered for party's failure to appear in person at pretrial conference); ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (default entered for party's failure to attend her deposition).

is circumscribed by due process considerations.” ¶ 18

However, when a court imposes severe sanctions such as dismissal or entry of default, its discretion “is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009).

See ¶ 20, see also Estate of Lewis, 229 Ariz. at 324, ¶ 20, 275 P.3d at 623; 5 FLOARE v. DAMIAN Decision of the Court Montgomery Ward, 176 Ariz. at 622, 863 P.2d at 914; Lenze, 160 Ariz. at 3