Cited by

“The sanction that is appropriate and the process that is due depends on the circumstances and the exercise of trial court discretion.” Montgomery Ward &

(quoting Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd., ); see also Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (Garcia), (“The heavier the sanction contemplated, the more deliberate the process that is due and the more thorough the findings that should be made.”).

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

See Montgomery Ward & (noting court must consider "other, less severe, sanctions before resorting to the most extreme."

¶25 Rule 26.1, which governs the parties’ obligations to make prompt disclosure of information, was adopted “to make the judicial system in Arizona more efficient.” Montgomery Ward & (quoting Ariz. R. Civ.

Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 12 (App. 1999), and citing Montgomery Ward & ).

(quotation omitted); (“[d]ue process does not require that a hearing be held in every case,” even where “sanctions of dismissal or entry of default judgment” are entered); Montgomery Ward & Co., (“The heavier the sanction contemplated, the more deliberate the process that is due and the more thorough the findings that should be made.”).

at ¶ 13 (quoting Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court (Garcia), ).

See Montgomery Ward & –22 (App. 1993) (describing superior court’s discretion to determine appropriate sanction for discovery violation); see also Washington, 653 F.3d at 1268.

“The sanction that is appropriate and the process that is due depends on the circumstances and the exercise of trial court discretion.” Montgomery Ward & , , (“Due process does not require that a hearing be held in every case,” even where “sanctions of dismissal or entry of default judgment” are entered.).

Ltd. P’ship, ¶¶ 11-12 , -13 (App.1999) (error to dismiss lawsuit based on discovery violation absent determination whether client or attorney at fault); Montgomery Ward & -23 , -15 (App.1993) (trial court must determine whether party personally at fault in discovery process before striking answer).

preceded by due process.” Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court, 176 Ariz. 619, 622

Id.; see Zimmerman, 204 Ariz. at 233, ¶ 2 , 62 P.3d at 978 (dismissal for nondisclosure must be accompanied by evidentiary hearing to determine whether party or counsel is at fault); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Superior Court (Garcia), , (court may be required to hold evidentiary hearing).

Courts should also use a common sense approach in applying the rules, id., and any sanctions “must be appropriate, and they must be preceded by due process.” Montgomery Ward &amp

Sanctions for abuses of discovery or disclosure “must be appropriate, and they must be preceded by due process.” Montgomery Ward &amp

¶ 9 Notwithstanding the reference in Rule 26.1(g) to a “party or attorney,” in Montgomery Ward & , we concluded that Rule 26.1(g)’s adoption did not change existing law.

The Kormans rely on Montgomery Ward & Co., , for the proposition that the trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions it deems just under the circumstances.