View Document - Arizona Court Rules

Home Table of Contents

Rule 3.12. Complex Civil Litigation Program

Arizona Revised Statutes AnnotatedLocal Rules of Practice Superior CourtEffective: January 1, 2020

Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated

Local Rules of Practice Superior Court (Refs & Annos)

Maricopa County (Refs & Annos)

Rule 3. Civil Cases

Effective: January 1, 2020

17C A.R.S. Super.Ct.Local Prac.Rules, Maricopa County, Rule 3.12

Rule 3.12. Complex Civil Litigation Program

Currentness

a. Designation.

(1) Definition. A “complex civil action” is a civil action that requires continuous judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote an effective decision-making process by the court, the parties, and counsel.

(2) Factors. In deciding whether a civil action is a complex civil action under Rule 3.12(a)(1), the court must consider the following factors:

(A) numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;

(B) management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence;

(D) coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or counties, or in a federal court;

(E) substantial post judgment judicial supervision;

(F) the action would benefit from permanent assignment to a judge who would have acquired a substantial body of knowledge in a specific area of the law;

(G) inherently complex legal issues;

(H) factors justifying the expeditious resolution of an otherwise complex dispute; and

(I) any other factor that in the interests of justice warrants a complex designation or as otherwise required to serve the interests of justice.

(3) Procedure for Designating a Complex Civil Action.

(A) Designation by Plaintiff. When filing its initial complaint, a plaintiff may designate an action as a complex civil action by filing a motion and separate certificate of complexity identifying the case attributes in Rule 3.12(a)(2) justifying the designation. The certification must be served on the defendant along with the motion when the complaint is served.

(B) Designation by Defendant. If the plaintiff has not done so and if the court has not already ruled on whether the action is complex, a defendant may designate an action as complex by filing a motion and certificate of complexity as described in Rule 3.12(a)(3)(A) with or before the filing of defendant's first responsive pleading.

(C) Joint Designation. The parties may jointly designate an action as complex by filing a joint motion and certificate of complexity with or before the filing of any defendant's first responsive pleading.

(4) Procedure for Opposing Designation. If a plaintiff has certified that an action is complex, the court has not previously declared the action to be a complex civil action, and another party disagrees with the plaintiff's certificate, the opposing party must file--no later than when that party files its first responsive pleading--a response to the plaintiff's motion and a controverting certificate that specifies the particular reason for the opposing party's disagreement with the plaintiff's certificate. If a defendant has certified that an action is complex, the court has not previously declared the action to be a complex civil action, and another party disagrees with the defendant's certificate, the opposing party must file--no later than 10 days after the motion and certificate of complexity are served--a response to the designating party's motion and controverting certificate that specifies the particular reason for the opposing party's disagreement with the designating party's certificate.

(5) Effect of Signature. An attorney's or party's signature constitutes a certification by the signer that the signer has considered the applicability of this rule; that the signer has read the certificate of complexity or controverting certificate; that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is warranted; and that the allegation of complexity is not made for any improper purpose. Rule 11(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure applies to every certification of complexity filed under this rule.

(6) Action by Court.

(A) On Motion. When Filing an Initial Pleading. The presiding superior court judge, or the judge's designee, must decide, with or without a hearing, whether the action is a complex civil action within 30 days after the filing of the response to the designating party's motion.

(B) Later Ruling. At any time during the pendency of an action, the court may, on motion or on its own, decide that a civil action is a complex civil action or that an action previously declared to be a complex civil action is not a complex civil action.

(C) Sanctions. If the court finds that the certificate of a party or its counsel designating an action as complex was not made in good faith the court may--on motion or on its own--make such orders as are just, including, among others, any action authorized under Rule 11(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

(7) Not Appealable. Parties do not have the right to appeal the court's decision regarding the designation of an action as complex or noncomplex.

b. Initial Case Management Conference.

(1) Conference: Subjects for Consideration. Once an action is determined to be a complex civil action under this Rule, the court must conduct an initial case management conference at the earliest practical date with all parties who have appeared in the action, and must promptly enter a Case Management Order after the conference. Among the subjects that should be considered a such a conference are:

(A) the status of parties and pleadings;

(B) determining whether severance, consolidation, or coordination with other actions is desirable;

(D) scheduling class certification motions, if applicable;

(E) scheduling discovery proceedings, setting limits on discovery, and determining whether to appoint a discovery master;

(F) issuing protective orders;

(G) any requirements or limits for the disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which the electronically stored information should be produced;

(H) any measures the parties must take to preserve discoverable documents or electronically stored information;

(I) any agreements reached by the parties for asserting claims of privilege or of protection of trial-preparation materials after production;

(J) appointing liaison counsel and admission of nonresident counsel;

(K) scheduling settlement conferences;

(L) determining whether the requirements and timing for disclosure under Rule 26.1 should be varied;

(M) scheduling expert disclosures and whether sequencing of expert disclosures is warranted;

(N) scheduling dispositive motions;

(O) adopting a uniform numbering system for documents and establishing a document depository;

(P) determining whether electronic service of discovery materials and pleadings is warranted;

(Q) organizing a master list of contact information for counsel;

(R) determining whether expedited trial proceedings are desired or appropriate;

(S) scheduling further conferences as necessary;

(T) use of technology, videoconferencing and/or teleconferencing;

(U) determining whether the issues can be resolved by summary judgment, summary trial, trial to the court, jury trial, or some combination of these procedures; and

(V) such other matters as the court or the parties deem appropriate in managing or expediting the action.

(2) Meetings of Parties Before Conference: Joint Report. Before the initial case management conference, all parties who have appeared in the action, or their counsel, must meet or confer concerning the matters to be raised at the conference, must attempt in good faith to reach agreement on as many case management issues as possible, and must submit a joint report to the court no later than 7 days before the conference. The court may sanction a party or its counsel if the party or counsel fails to participate in good faith in this meeting.

(3) Purpose of Conference. The purpose of the initial case management conference is to identify the essential issues in the litigation and to avoid unnecessary, burdensome, or duplicative discovery and other pretrial procedures in the course of preparing for trial of those issues.

(4) Establishing Time Limits. Time limits should be regularly used to expedite major phases of a complex civil action. Time limits should be established early, tailored to the circumstances of each action, firmly and fairly maintained, and accompanied by other methods of sound judicial management. The date of the final pretrial conference must be set by the court as early as possible.

(5) Commencement of Discovery. Unless the parties agree by stipulation filed with the court or the court orders otherwise, no party may initiate discovery or disclosure in a complex civil action until the court has entered a Case Management Order in the action.

Credits

Added Aug. 27, 2019, effective Jan. 1, 2020.

17C A. R. S. Super. Ct. Local Prac. Rules, Maricopa County, Rule 3.12, AZ ST MARICOPA SUPER CT Rule 3.12

State Court Rules are current with amendments received through April 1, 2024. The Code of Judicial Administration is current with amendments received through April 1, 2024.

End of Document