Litigation can be expensive and time-consuming. Sometimes, the disputes that arise during a lawsuit have little to do with who is ultimately right or wrong. Instead, the parties spend time arguing over what documents must be produced, whether someone can amend a complaint, or whether a subpoena goes too far.
Beginning January 1, 2027, a new Arizona court rule will give parties a more streamlined way to resolve certain disputes without the time and expense of traditional motion practice.
What Is Changing?
Arizona courts already have a procedure for quickly resolving discovery disputes. Discovery is the process through which parties exchange documents, answer written questions, and obtain testimony before trial.
Under the existing Rule 26(d), parties who cannot resolve a discovery disagreement are generally required to confer with one another and then submit a joint statement identifying the dispute. Rather than filing lengthy motions and responses, the parties can ask the court to address the issue through an expedited hearing.
The new Rule 7.5 moves that procedure out of Rule 26 and expands it to cover additional types of disputes. The idea is simple: not every disagreement during litigation needs to become a separate round of formal briefing.
What Types of Disputes Will Be Covered?
The new rule will continue to apply to discovery disputes, such as disagreements about whether a party must turn over documents or answer certain questions. Beginning January 1, 2027, it will also apply to other procedural disputes, including certain disagreements about amending pleadings and subpoenas.
For example, suppose a business files a lawsuit for breach of contract and later discovers information suggesting it should add another claim. The opposing party refuses to agree to the amendment. Under the traditional approach, the parties might spend weeks preparing and responding to a formal motion. Under the new procedure, that disagreement may be presented to the court through a shorter, more direct process.
The rule does not change whether the amendment should ultimately be allowed. It changes how the parties can get that question before the judge.
Why Does This Matter?
For businesses and individuals involved in litigation, the biggest potential benefit is reduced cost. A streamlined procedure allows the parties to focus on the specific disagreement rather than devote additional time and money to extensive briefing.
It may also encourage parties to resolve disagreements themselves. When attorneys know that a judge can address an issue promptly, there may be less incentive to prolong a dispute.
Does This Mean Every Dispute Will Be Resolved Immediately?
No. The new rule does not eliminate the need for parties to cooperate, and it does not guarantee an immediate hearing or ruling.
The parties must still make a good-faith effort to resolve covered disputes before involving the court. Judges also retain discretion over how to address disagreements and whether additional briefing is necessary.
More complicated issues may still require additional submissions or a hearing.
What Does This Mean for Your Lawsuit?
The new rule is a procedural change, not a change to the underlying legal rights of either party. A party seeking documents must still establish that the requested discovery is appropriate. A party seeking to amend a complaint must still satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
But the process for resolving disagreements may become more efficient.
For anyone involved in Arizona civil litigation, that is a meaningful development. The cost of a lawsuit is not limited to preparing for trial. It also includes the many smaller disputes that arise along the way.
Arizona’s new Rule 7.5 recognizes that resolving those disputes should not necessarily require another expensive round of litigation.