Cited by

Co. v. O’Toole, (“A slight delay .

-88 (1995) (stating that mandatory sanctions are "unduly harsh, overly punitive, and inconsistent with the purposes of the [] rules" and "the relevant question must be whether [a violation] is harmful to the opposing party or to the justice system").

Co. v. O’Toole, ¶ 23 (App. 2013).2 Where a firm trial date has been set, “[f]actors supporting the exclusion of undisclosed evidence ‘gain strength as the trial nears.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).

v. O’Toole, (discussing recently-amended disclosure rules).

¶13 Citing Allstate v. O’Toole, Faulkner contends that the defendants were “lying in wait” and used the disclosure violations as a “weapon” for exclusion.

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 expe

Co. v. O’Toole, (citing Rule 1’s mandate to construe rules in a “just” manner).

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)).

Co. v. O’Toole, 4 In his brief, Father advises that none of Mother’s exhibits were timely disclosed, but that the court admitted all of those exhibits she physically provided to counsel on the day of the hearing.

Co. v. O’Toole, (party who was aware of opposing party’s failure to disclose evidence, but “did nothing to remind [opposing litigants] of their [disclosure] obligation and made no additional requests for [non-disclosed] information” was not entitled to preclusion of evidence).

Co. v. O’Toole, -88, -58 (1995).

Co. v. O’Toole, , (“We have encouraged trial courts to take firm, active roles in the application and enforcement of [the disclosure] rules that were specifically designed to curb discovery abuse, excessive cost, and delay.

Co. v. O’Toole, , 896 P.2d *413 254, 257 (1995) (“The disclosure rules and sanctions were not meant to thwart that goal [of maximizing the likelihood of a decision on the merit s] by encouraging litigants to lie in wait for their opponents to miss a deadline and then use that momentary transgression to get a ease effectively dis