Cited by

However, the court “has broad discretion in ruling on disclosure and discovery matters, and we will not disturb its ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 3 (App. 1998) (citation omitted).

P. 37(c)(1); –39 ¶ 4 (App. 1998) (“The trial court can exclude evidence that is not timely disclosed.”).

¶ 12 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 18 (App. 1998)).

MacKinney, 231 Ariz. at 591, ¶ 20 (mixed question); ¶ 18 (App. 1998) (court decides issue when there is no factual dispute); ¶ 60 (App. 2015) (standard of review).

“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, ( ¶ 3, ).

¶ 14 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 3 (App. 1998)).

Chamberlain, 151 Ariz. at 554 , ; , ¶ 18 n. 5, (noting that court may use special interrogatories to aid expeditious resolution of the question of whether immunity applies).

-81, ¶¶ 13-27, -88 (App. 2010) (noting that the court properly excluded an expert’s testimony because his opinions and the facts relied on were not adequately disclosed); -39, ¶¶ 1, 8, -72 (App. 1998) (noting that trial court did not abuse its broad discretion by precluding testimony because the facts 3 In Larsen, we stated that foundation needs to demonstrate that “bills were caused by and were reasonable and necessary results of the .

Detailed scripting is not required, Solimeno, 227 P.3d at 484, and deposition testimony may be considered an amendment to prior disclosures