Cited by

¶15 Before imposing § 12-349 sanctions, the superior court held a “culprit hearing.” ¶ 26 (App. 2013).

“In reviewing for an abuse of discretion, the question is not whether the judges of this court would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason.” ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (citation modified).

& ¶ 33 (App. 2004); ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (explaining the question is whether the court reached its decision without exceeding the bounds of reason, given the law and circumstances).

within the United States but cannot presently bring it or cause it to be brought.” Based on that reasoning, Dreambrands argues the superior court “lacked any legitimate basis to grant Rule 27 relief.” ¶15 The superior court “has broad discretion in ruling on disclosure and discovery matters, and this court will not disturb that ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 14 (App. 2013); ¶ 21 (App. 2023).

A trial court “has broad discretion in ruling on disclosure and discovery matters, and this court will not disturb that ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 14 (App. 2013).

See Estate of Brady v. Tempe Life Care Village, Inc., ¶ 20 n.3 (App. 2022) ( ¶¶ 25-28 (App. 2013)).

and the practical effect of any non-disclosure," ¶ 9 (App. 2010), we review "whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason," ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (quoting Associated Indem.

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).

In addressing a discovery dispute, “[t]he question is not whether the judges of this court would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason.” ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (quoting Associated Indem.

¶ 14 (App. 2013); ¶ 6 (App. 2000).

This court reviews “whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason,” and will not substitute its discretion for the superior court’ ¶ 14 (App. 2013).

We will not substitute our discretion for that of the superior court; instead, we review “whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason.” ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (quoting Associated Indem.

Such hearings present an opportunity for the client to reveal to the court its lack of involvement in sanctionable conduct.” ¶ 34 (App. 2011) (citing cases); ¶ 26 (App. 2013).

¶13 “A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on disclosure and discovery matters, and this court will not disturb that ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 14 (App. 2013).

¶ 14 (App. 2013); Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young