Service Interrogatories With Questions In Maricopa
Description
Form popularity
FAQ
Rule 37-Failure to Make or Cooperate in Discovery: Sanctions. (a) Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery. A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling disclosure or discovery as follows: (1) Appropriate Court.
Arizona has some of the most restrictive sentencing laws in the country, with every person who is incarcerated required to serve a minimum 85 percent of his or her sentence— regardless of good behavior. This has resulted in a bloated prison population and massive state prison spending.
A party may use a uniform interrogatory when it is appropriate to the legal or factual issues of the particular action, regardless of how the action or claims are designated. A party propounding a uniform interrogatory may do so by serving a notice that identifies the uniform interrogatory by form and number.
Interrogatories are written questions sent by one party in a lawsuit to another party in that same suit, which the responding party must answer under penalty of perjury. Interrogatories allow the parties to ask who, what, when, where and why questions, making them a good method for obtaining new information.
A Rule 69 Agreement allows the parties to settle some or all of their disputes privately, leaving only the unresolved issues to be resolved by the family law court. Common disputes settled ahead of divorce trial proceedings are visitation, parenting time, child support, and how to divide assets.
Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions (a) Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery (1)Generally. Subject to Rule 26(d), a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.
Rule 60 - Sanctions (a)Types and Forms of Sanctions, Attorneys. Misconduct by an attorney, individually or in concert with others, shall be grounds for imposition of one or more of the following sanctions: 1. Disbarment.
Rule 33 is amended to provide that an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it calls for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.
