Cited by

¶32 But “[d]isclosure, like all discovery, is not a game.”

DISCUSSION ¶7 Arizona’s disclosure rules are designed to provide parties “a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial.” n.5 (1994).

¶13 "The disclosure rules are designed to provide parties 'a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement —nothing more, nothing less.'" ¶ 13 (App. 2003) ( n.5 (1994)).

“The object of disclosure, as with all discovery, is to permit the opponent a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement-nothing more, nothing less.” n.5 (1994).

Co., 182 Ariz. at 287 ( n.5 (1994)).

¶24 Arizona’s “disclosure rules are designed to provide parties ‘a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement – nothing more, nothing less.’” ¶ 13 (App. 2003) ().

¶14 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1(a)(7) requires a party to timely disclose “a computation and measure of each category of damages” and “the documents and testimony on which such computation and measure are based.” But the purpose of any disclosure rule is to provide the parties “a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial.” n.5 (1994).

Co. v. O’Toole, (defendant, aware that unrepresented plaintiffs had failed to serve their disclosure statement, did nothing to remind plaintiffs of their obligations and deliberately did not continue with other discovery); -77 (1994) (plaintiff failed to make adequate disclosures of expected witness testimony, but defendant had obtained the relevant information via other discovery methods).

n.5 (1994) (recognizing that the disclosure rules do not require detailed “scripting” of expected testimony; “The object of disclosure, as with all discovery, is to permit the opponent a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement – nothing more, nothing less.”).

Fund, (finding that disclosure of an affidavit in a response to a dispositive motion was timely because it responded to an issue raised for the first time in the motion), vacated in part on other grounds, (“Disclosure, like all discovery, is not a game.

See, (reviewing rulings involving alleged discovery violations for an abuse of discretion); Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S.V.

v. O’Toole, (holding the court should consider whether a party was prejudiced by interference with his “‘reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement — nothing more, nothing less’”) ( n.5 (1994)).

3 CLARK v. CLARK Decision of the Court 976, 980 (App. 2003) (citation omitted); n.5, n.5 (1994) (noting that the purpose of the rules is to provide the parties “a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement-nothing more, nothing less”).

ers of any witnesses whom the disclosing party expects to call at trial with a fair description of the substance of each witness’ expected testimony.” The purpose of Rule 26.1, and other pretrial disclosure rules, “is to allow the parties ‘a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement—nothing more, nothing less.’” Allstate, 182 Ariz. at 287, 896 P.2d at 257 ( n.5, n.5 (1994)).

at trial, including a writing detailing “the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify,” and “a summary of the grounds for each opinion.” The purpose of the pretrial disclosure rules is “to provide the parties ‘a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial.’” n.5, n.5 (1994).

And this court has noted “trial by ambush 7 is a tactic no longer countenanced in Arizona courts.” Carlton v. Emhardt, 138 Ariz. 353, 355, (noting “amended [civil disclosure] rules attempt to change a culture of advocacy in which ‘hiding the pea’ has too frequently been the objective”).

¶ 87 , on which Augusta Ranch relies.

The purpose of the disclosure rules is to provide the parties “a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial or settlement.” , 476 n. 5, , 135 n. 5 (1994) (emphasis added).

(“A forfeiture is generally abhorred by the law.”).

¶33 The disclosure rules are designed to allow the parties a “reasonable opportunity” to prepare, “nothing more, nothing less.” , 476 n. 5, , 135 n. 5 (1994).