Cited by

VASQUEZ v. RAMIREZ Decision of the Court hearing, such a hearing “allows a trial court to determine whether a party, as opposed to that party’s counsel, is responsible for a disclosure or discovery violation, and ‘is aimed at protecting a party from dispositive sanctions when the fault lies only with counsel.’” Marquez, 231 Ariz. at 444, ¶ 26 ( ¶¶ 33–34 (App. 2011).

¶9 “A finding of civil contempt requires that the contemnor (1) has knowledge of a lawful court order, (2) has the ability to comply[,] and (3) fails to do so.” ¶ 41 (App. 2011).

¶ 34 (App. 2011) (A culprit hearing is “aimed at protecting a party from dispositive sanctions when the fault lies only with counsel.”).

¶ 10 (2003); 3 As an additional sanction, the superior court referred Bruno to the State Bar of Arizona “for appropriate disciplinary action.” 8 BERG, et al. v. WEISS & MOY, ¶ 19 (App. 2011); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (deferring to the superior court’s credibility determinations).

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).

We are bound by the superior court’s findings of fact, “unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” –79, ¶ 19 (App. 2011).

See, ¶ 21 (App. 2011) (“Arizona has a long-favored practice of allowing full cross- examination of expert witnesses, including inquiry about the expert’s sources, relations with the hiring party and counsel, possible bias, and prior opinions”) (quoting Ariz. Indep.

(sanctions); , (contempt).

¶¶ 33–34, (describing the purpose of a “culprit hearing,” which assesses whether lawyer or party should be held responsible for a discovery violation, as “protecting a party from dispositive sanctions when the fault lies only with counsel”).

( ¶¶ 33-34, ), and to ensure that the party against whom a sanction is imposed has received due process.

interest is subject to forfeiture,” Peña’s counsel stated that he “d[id]n’t interpret [the order] the same way.” As a result of this confusion, Peña was denied the opportunity to meaningfully contest the state’s allegations through the presentation of testimony and cross-examination of the state’s witnesses.4 -66 (App. 2011) (finding due process violation where court provided insufficient notice that “order to show cause” hearing would involve evidentiary hearing at which attorneys would be call

¶ 26 A “culprit hearing,” as it is commonly called, allows a trial court to determine whether a party, as opposed to that party’s counsel, is responsible for a disclosure or discovery violation, and “is aimed at protecting a party from dispositive sanctions when the fault lies only with counsel.” ¶¶ 33-34 , (citation omitted).