Cited by

¶8 The court denied Lopez’s motion, she did not meet the criteria of Rule 15.1(g) and that Lopez failed to show the tissue and organ specimens were necessary to present a complete defense.

¶ 4 (App. 1999) (explaining a superior court abuses its discretion in a discovery ruling if it misapplies the law or relies on irrational grounds).

¶ 4 (App. 1999) (information is discoverable if “it could lead to admissible evidence or would be admissible itself”).

And although the superior court is in the best position to rule on discovery requests, it “abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision upon irrational bases.” ¶ 4 (App. 1999) (internal quotations omitted).

¶ 6 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 4 (App. 1999)).

–82 ¶ 2, –72 (App. 1999) (describing the gas chromatography method and explaining how the resulting ratios from the computer-generated graphs reveal concentrations of substances in the blood).

“A trial court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion based on incorrect legal principles,” ¶ 4, or if it “predicates its decision upon irrational bases,” ¶ 4, (citation omitted).

¶ 9 , (in accepting special action jurisdiction and vacating discovery order, noting defendants had not conducted “independent testing of the blood samples each was apparently offered or provided, although this would be the best evidence of the only material issue, the accuracy of the

P. 15.1(g), P.3d 670 (App. 1999).

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 12 , ( , ¶ 4 , ).

See Go rman v. C ity of Phoen ix, 2 P .3d 670, 672 (A pp. 1999).