§ 3.7.2.6.5.3 Sanctions. Imposition of sanctions is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Seidman v. Seidman, 222 Ariz. 408, 411, ¶ 18, 215 P.3d 382, 385 (App. 2009); Sec. Title Agency, Inc. v. Pope, 219 Ariz. 480, 505, ¶ 111, 200 P.3d 977, 1002 (App. 2008); Hmielewski v. Maricopa Cty., 192 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 13, 960 P.2d 47, 50 (App. 1997). For example, the trial court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to R. Civ. P. 68 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9, 15, ¶ 31, 261 P.3d 784, 790 (App. 2011). A tax court ruling striking citation to unpublished authority is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Calpine Const. Fin. Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 221 Ariz. 244, 249, ¶ 23, 211 P.3d 1228, 1233 (App. 2009).
The sanction that is appropriate for discovery abuses and the process that is due before imposition of sanctions depend on the circumstances and exercise of the trial court’s discretion. See Marquez v. Ortega, 231 Ariz. 437, 444, ¶ 26, 296 P.3d 100, 107 (App. 2013). Appellate courts will affirm a trial court’s imposition of sanctions, including entry of default judgment, unless the record reflects a clear abuse of discretion. See Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 225 Ariz. 112, 119, ¶ 24, 235 P.3d 265, 272 (App. 2010).
However, the trial court’s discretion in dismissing a case for discovery violations is more limited than when it employs lesser sanctions. See Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 225 Ariz. 112, 119, ¶ 24, 235 P.3d 265, 272 (App. 2010); Hammoudeh v. Jada, 222 Ariz. 570...
