Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services PROVIDER MANUAL Comm
unity Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA Edition) Pa
Section 8.2 Independent Case Review
8.2.1 Introduction
8.2.2 References
8.2.3 Scope
8.2.4 Did you know…?
8.2.5 Objectives
8.2.6 Procedures
8.2.6-A: Independent Case Review
8.2.6-B: Additional RBHA medical record review activities
8.2.1 Introduction
ADHS/DBHS is required to oversee the performance of an Independent Case Review (ICR) to ascertain the extent to which established guidelines regarding access to services, timeliness of services and quality outcomes are being adhered to in the public behavioral health delivery system. The Independent Case Review is an annual evaluation of the statewide behavioral health system, conducted by a Professional Review Organization, to assess contractor performance and to identify areas of needed improvement in the provision of behavioral health services. Currently, the evaluation process is primarily conducted through case reviews but may also involve interviews of behavioral health recipients or others involved (e.g., service providers) when deemed necessary. Independent Case Review findings are utilized to improve care for persons receiving behavioral health services. This section provides an overview of the Independent Case Review and describes expectations for behavioral health providers to assist with:
▪
Implementation of the Independent Case Review Tool; and
▪
Implementation of any recommended actions to improve performance.
8.2.2 References
The following citations can serve as additional resources for this content area:
AHCCCS/ADHS Contract
ADHS/RBHA Contracts
ADHS/TRBHA IGAs
Independent Case Review Tool
8.2.3 Scope
To whom does this apply?
All enrolled persons, their behavioral health records and service providers may be part of the Independent Case Review.
8.2.4 Did you know…?
▪
An independent entity, also known as a Professional Review Organization, conducts the
ge 8.2 -1 8.2 Independent Case Review Last Revised: 01/01/2004 Effective Date: 06/01/2006
Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services PROVIDER MANUAL Comm
unity Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA Edition) Pa
Independent Case Review.
▪
Independent Case Review results are used to assess the quality of behavioral health services.
▪
Each standard in the Independent Case Review Tool has pre-determined level of performance established by ADHS/DBHS.
8.2.5 Objectives
To describe behavioral health provider’s obligations regarding the Independent Case Review.
8.2.6 Procedures
8.2.6-A: Independent Case Review
Behavioral health providers must cooperate with ADHS, the Professional Review Organization and the T/RBHA by allowing access to provider staff, behavioral health recipients and their behavioral health records.
CPSA uses the ICR results in order to implement system-wide improvements. Providers will be expected to assist in analyzing the data, identifying areas that need improvement, implementing such improvements, and submitting updates in terms of approximating or meeting the standards for each of the ICR indicators.
8.2.6-B: Additional RBHA medical record review activities
In addition to the ICR, CPSA has an extensive system of monitoring its network and subcontracted providers. CPSA's main methods of obtaining ongoing improvement data are through the Annual Network Provider Profile and the Joint Site Reviews. The Annual Network Provider Profile consists of a representative sample of records for each provider being reviewed against the ICR and other quality of care standards. The Biennial Joint Site Reviews consist of CPSA staff teaming with Network staff and reviewing the Network’s subcontracted providers. Network and Subcontracted providers are expected to assist CPSA with both of these processes.
ge 8.2 -2 8.2 Independent Case Review Last Revised: 01/01/2004 Effective Date: 06/01/2006
| Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tucson JP Civil Docket | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CV11-510581A-SC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4/26/2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Maureen is one insensitive *****
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy Sevelis
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months.
Dear Maureen:
I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months. I send this only to you. This is not about my cases, per se, but a truthful & honest opinion about you. OH, I did and still do appreciate LaFrontera's assistance that was provided to me.
We've had a professional relationship since December 2008 so I believe we both have a reasonable opinion of ourselves. The one part of all this was your complete lack of honesty and trust towards me. Which to this day I don't understand. Can I just go over the cast of characters in this melodrama.
A landlord who after 3 years wanted to get rid of me and used any trick in the book to do so. Do you know why she wanted to get rid of me? Here goes. As you can tell I am a VERY assertive person. Got through basically on my own. Now comes a person who for whatever reasons does not like people who she can't intimidate. I spoke directly in person's face, just as she did to me. I can understand why the personality trait due to 80% of the residence there are on Social Security, disabled, etc. The lease contract was a one way street with the person. We both knew we disliked each other.
Now Maureen, in all this melodrama, you are the only person on the timeline who seems to be behind the curtain.
Face it - Landlord and I disliked each other so there is no mystery there.
Magnotto only had the information you provided to him.
Let's face it. 4 days to make an important decision about a person with a SMI trying to cope with many things without knowing any facts. It was by you and you alone that was the judge, the jury, and the executioner all in one. Not once did you call me in and let tell you the situation. OH, I know your answer likely is I've done violations in the past which 90% were bogus. On countless occasions, I basically begged you to get me out of there, but you always had some excuse. Living there beats the purpose of getting mental assistance, when I had to deal with, it just added to my depression, not less.
I don't understand it Maureen. I really don't. Not even a "Sorry". I might have made a wrong decision. But it never came. I know it's human nature not to admit to our foibles and shortcomings.
Well, the unbiased courts, after knowing all the facts decided with me on 2 occasions. The apartment company is paying me restitution for wrong-doings. Everything was put on the table with the judge. The preponderance of all the evidence was on my side, period. I am pleased somewhat because what happened in the end proved I was the honest one. The truthful one.
I asked Rob to transfer me to another behavioral services org. That's pretty much it.
Good Luck
--
Timothy Sevelis
----------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maureen McGannon
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:33:48 -0700
Subject: RE: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding thelast 7 months.
To: Timothy Sevelis
Tim-I have nothing to apologize for-I followed program protocol and I had met with you on 8/8/12 and the decision was made based oncircumstances-period. You even received an extension to remain in your apartment for an additional month. You benefited from the program for a number of years-I wish you the best regarding your future.
 |
| Just Following Orders! |
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy Sevelis
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months.
Dear Maureen:
I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding the last 7 months. I send this only to you. This is not about my cases, per se, but a truthful & honest opinion about you. OH, I did and still do appreciate LaFrontera's assistance that was provided to me.
We've had a professional relationship since December 2008 so I believe we both have a reasonable opinion of ourselves. The one part of all this was your complete lack of honesty and trust towards me. Which to this day I don't understand. Can I just go over the cast of characters in this melodrama.
A landlord who after 3 years wanted to get rid of me and used any trick in the book to do so. Do you know why she wanted to get rid of me? Here goes. As you can tell I am a VERY assertive person. Got through basically on my own. Now comes a person who for whatever reasons does not like people who she can't intimidate. I spoke directly in person's face, just as she did to me. I can understand why the personality trait due to 80% of the residence there are on Social Security, disabled, etc. The lease contract was a one way street with the person. We both knew we disliked each other.
Now Maureen, in all this melodrama, you are the only person on the timeline who seems to be behind the curtain.
Face it - Landlord and I disliked each other so there is no mystery there.
Magnotto only had the information you provided to him.
Let's face it. 4 days to make an important decision about a person with a SMI trying to cope with many things without knowing any facts. It was by you and you alone that was the judge, the jury, and the executioner all in one. Not once did you call me in and let tell you the situation. OH, I know your answer likely is I've done violations in the past which 90% were bogus. On countless occasions, I basically begged you to get me out of there, but you always had some excuse. Living there beats the purpose of getting mental assistance, when I had to deal with, it just added to my depression, not less.
I don't understand it Maureen. I really don't. Not even a "Sorry". I might have made a wrong decision. But it never came. I know it's human nature not to admit to our foibles and shortcomings.
Well, the unbiased courts, after knowing all the facts decided with me on 2 occasions. The apartment company is paying me restitution for wrong-doings. Everything was put on the table with the judge. The preponderance of all the evidence was on my side, period. I am pleased somewhat because what happened in the end proved I was the honest one. The truthful one.
I asked Rob to transfer me to another behavioral services org. That's pretty much it.
Good Luck
--
Timothy Sevelis
----------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maureen McGannon
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:33:48 -0700
Subject: RE: I really never got a chance to talk to you regarding thelast 7 months.
To: Timothy Sevelis
Tim-I have nothing to apologize for-I followed program protocol and I had met with you on 8/8/12 and the decision was made based oncircumstances-period. You even received an extension to remain in your apartment for an additional month. You benefited from the program for a number of years-I wish you the best regarding your future.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Time to Leave LaFrontera
I can't support an agency that wasn't there for me. I guess truth is a concept some people have to learn on their own. If these are the kind of people working in companies, agencies that have a mission to help the client (see Below).
God save us all!
Moral Victory
Well, The case between Sarah and me is over. A moral victory was the end result.
- $900
- Sarah no longer works there
- A court record was established. Hopefully anyone considering a Weidner property will think twice about supporting a business that ONLY cared about representing an employee who went berserk.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Jury or Bench TRIAL?
I am going to ask the court to consider a JURY trial in this matter. If this farce keeps going, let a jury decide.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/judge-vs-jury-trial-faq-29139.html
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/judge-vs-jury-trial-faq-29139.html
 |
| http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/judge-vs-jury-trial-faq-29139.html |
2 simple words for your client to practice saying!
A simple way to end this is to have your client say the following words! But, I don't think she is capable of saying these 2 simple words. I still need compensation for the damage Ms. Choban has done!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Vista Montana Housing File
Defense Attorney:
Ask Ms. Choban where all the correspondence between LaFrontera and Ms. Choban is. I'm sure she was an excellent record keeper!
 |
| burden of proof. Compare onus probandi. |
Ask Ms. Choban where all the correspondence between LaFrontera and Ms. Choban is. I'm sure she was an excellent record keeper!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Compromise???
Defense Attorney:
I am still amenable to compromise and I proposed it to you earlier. If you think you can convince that Weidner and Sarah Janis Choban are not culpable, then I suggest you first convince the mediator and the judge that Ms. Choban can tell-the-truth.
Remember this? If SARAH can't tell the truth to a JUDGE, then she LIES! LYING is a willful act. If Sarah can't tell the truth, then YOUR case falls apart. This whole case has been about the truth and veracity of Ms. Sarah Janis Choban. Willful act means TREBLE DAMAGES!
Compromise is up to YOU!
I am still amenable to compromise and I proposed it to you earlier. If you think you can convince that Weidner and Sarah Janis Choban are not culpable, then I suggest you first convince the mediator and the judge that Ms. Choban can tell-the-truth.
Remember this? If SARAH can't tell the truth to a JUDGE, then she LIES! LYING is a willful act. If Sarah can't tell the truth, then YOUR case falls apart. This whole case has been about the truth and veracity of Ms. Sarah Janis Choban. Willful act means TREBLE DAMAGES!
Compromise is up to YOU!
 |
| SARAH HEARS ME SAY "KILL THE MANAGER" |
 |
| TELLS JUDGE BLAKE SHE HEARS IT THROUGH "HEARSAY" |
 |
| COMPROMISE |
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Housing File
Apparently, The defense attorney doesn't know how to just ask me for the file. I'm sure what I provide won't be as skimpy as the file she gave me (HINT!!!!).
 |
| LaFrontera 01312012 |
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
 |
| Introduction to the Law of the United States |
Dear Clients
Last week Judy and I attended a meeting with HUD officials to discuss the rollout of HUD’s new affordable housing programs and its goals for the upcoming year. According to the presenters, HUD is proposing two new housing programs to improve the quality and increase the stock of affordable housing. It is also taking a very close look at whether properties and political subdivisions that receive federal subsidies are complying with their obligation to affirmatively advance fair housing. As all three of these issues may affect your business, I wanted to be sure you are aware of what is happening.
Preservation, Enhancement and Transforming Rental Assistance (PETRA) Program
This program, which has not yet been funded by Congress, is intended to preserve and improve federally assisted housing through an infusion of public and private market capital. Essentially the program will combine existing public housing programs with HUD’s twelve (12) other existing rental assistance programs and offer each of them the opportunity to convert to a single funding stream under Section 8.
The new program is expected to have three variations:
Long term project based contracts (PBCs)
Project based vouchers (PBVs)
Tenant based vouchers (TBVs)
Within these variations participating properties will move from public housing rents, which are currently based on operating costs, to market based rents that can leverage private capital and encourage better location of housing. PETRA will also allow additional flexibility in the use of the subsidy to create mixed income buildings and communities, permit movement of contracts and portions of contracts between properties, and allow a shift of project-based contracts (100% assisted) to project based vouchers, which serve partially assisted properties. Tax credit properties, which are not specifically affected by this change, may be given the opportunity to contract with local PHAs to designate certain units or buildings to receive contracts for project based vouchers. Finally the existing system of different rules, regulations and requirements for each federally assisted housing program will be unified so that there is only one set of rules, regulations and requirements for all federally assisted housing.
HUD anticipates that properties that opt to participate in the shift will be able to leverage private funding sources to address needs for immediate repairs, renovation and long-term capital needs. Under certain circumstances HUD will allow properties to charge above-market rents, when comparable market rents
and the applicable fair market rent is insufficient to properly preserve the property by meeting immediate and long-term capital needs.
Choice Neighborhoods
Choice Neighborhoods is HUD’s follow-up to the HOPE VI program and has already been funded by Congress.
Under this program HUD will provide increased funding for mixed-income, mixed-use housing within new parameters. Eligible applicants will include public housing authorities, local governments, non-profits and for-profit developers in partnership with a public entity such as a public housing agency.
Housing built under this program must have access to good schools, jobs, retail and transportation and must create communities that are physically and financially viable over the long term. Proposed funding requests are required to take all of these factors into consideration. So, for example, a proposal for a Choice Neighborhoods grant will be required to show that the community has a good performing school or that a good performing charter school will be relocated nearby and that early learning programs are available. Because Choice Neighborhoods is jointly funded by HUD, the US Treasury, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Justice, grant funding can be used to bring in schools, build public transit stops, and catalyze other investments in neighborhood improvements.
In contrast to the HOPE VI program, eligible applicants for Choice Neighborhoods include public housing authorities, local governments, non-profits and for-profit developers who work in partnership with public entities. Applicants will be eligible to apply for two types of grants: (1) planning grants for communities that are not yet ready to implement a transformation plan; and (2) implementation grants for communities that have already undergone a comprehensive planning process and are ready to implement it. HUD will be posting a NOFA on its website to accept applications for these grants this summer.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
As everyone who deals with assisted housing knows, HUD imposes upon all properties and entitles an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. During the presentation on Choice Neighborhoods the speaker reminded all participants that this obligation is a very high priority for HUD in this administration and emphasized that HUD is actively looking at different communities and properties to ensure that they are taking this obligation seriously.
Properties that receive HUD subsidies and communities that obtain HUD grants, including CDBG funding, must analyze their activities on an annual basis
and determine whether their policies and programs, including outreach, are effective in encouraging the full integration of all eligible persons regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, familial status or physical or mental disability. When we spoke with the speaker afterwards he emphasized that HUD is reviewing the policies and practices of federal financial recipients to determine whether any of their policies or programs create barriers to fair housing.
Over the last couple years HUD has sued several communities for providing false information to HUD, for example, because they receive CDBG grants but have either erected or not made serious efforts to remove barriers to fair housing. This scrutiny – not only of communities but also of all grant recipients – will be increased over the next several years. If you have any questions or concerns as to whether your property is doing enough to meet these obligations, please feel free to contact us so that we can discuss it with you.
We will be monitoring all of these new programs and initiatives and will keep you apprised as more information about them comes up. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Most sincerely,
Scott Clark
I AM OUTRAGED BY THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS
.jpg)
Timothy Sevelis
734 East Roger Road,Apt. #108
Tucson, AZ 85719
Telephone: (520)870-1635
E-Mail: tsevelis@gmail.com
January 29, 2012
Ms. Judy Drickey-Prohow
The Law Offices of Scott M. Clark
3008 N. 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85018
RE: The Defendant is on the Vista Montana property on many of occasions.
Dear Ms.Drickey-Prohow:
I am getting reports from tenants that Ms. Sarah Janis Choban is on the Vista Montana property on many occasions. It would seem that her "better opportunities" elsewhere aren't working out. Also, since I have a NO trespassing notice to not step on the property, this gives Ms. Choban an unfair advantage in coercion of the residence.
I want immediately the NO trespassing notice stricken, or this unfair level playing field will be notified to Judge Segal's office and the mediation conference on February 3, 2012.
I will be asking the court to immediately rule in my favor due to this unfair advantage Ms. Choban seems to be taking and, as her lawyer, you have NOT done anything to stop it.
Respectfully,
Timothy Sevelis
Saturday, January 28, 2012
ARE YOU READY TO SETTLE YET??????
Settlement (litigation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Civil procedure in the United States |
|---|
|
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Basis
A settlement, as well as dealing with the dispute between the parties is a contract between those parties, and is one possible (and common) result when parties sue (or contemplate so doing) each other in civil proceedings. The plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) identified in the lawsuit can end the dispute between themselves without a trial.[1]The contract is based upon the bargain that a party foregoes its ability to sue (if it has not sued already), or to continue with the claim (if the plaintiff has sued), in return for the certainty written into the settlement. The courts will enforce the settlement: if it is breached, the party in default could be sued for breach of that contract. In some jurisdictions, the party in default could also face the original action being restored.
The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.
The majority of cases are decided by a settlement. Both sides (regardless of relative monetary resources) often have a strong incentive to settle to avoid the costs (such as legal fees, finding expert witnesses, etc.), the time and the stress associated with a trial, particularly where a trial by jury is available. Generally, one side or the other will make a settlement offer early in litigation. The parties may hold (and indeed, the court may require) a settlement conference, at which they attempt to reach such a settlement.
In controversial cases, it may be written into a settlement that both sides keep its contents and all other information relevant to the case confidential, and/or that one of the parties (usually the one being sued) does not, by agreeing to the settlement, admit to any fault or wrongdoing in the underlying issue.
[edit] Specific jurisdictions
[edit] United States
Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the settlement.Confidentiality is not possible in class action cases in the United States, where all settlements are subject to approval by the court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and counterpart rules adopted in most states.
[edit] England and Wales
In England and Wales, if the matter is already before the courts, except in a case where the claim is to be dismissed outright and the Claimant agrees to pay the Defendant's costs, the matter is usually dealt with by a consent order, signed by the legal representatives of both parties and approved by the judge.To get around the issue of confidentiality referred to above, a standard procedure consent order, known as a Tomlin Order is entered into. The order itself contains an agreement that the claim is stayed and no further action can be taken in court (except for referring a dispute in the implementation of the order to court, which is allowed). The order also deals with payment of costs, and payments of money out of court if any money is held by the court (as these are matters which must be dealt with by Court Order). However, the actual terms of the settlement are dealt with in a 'schedule' to the order, which can remain confidential. Breach of the schedule can be dealt with as breach of contract, or breach of the consent order.
[edit] Israel
In Israel, which is a quasi-common law jurisdiction, settlements almost always are submitted to the court, for two reasons: (a) only by submitting the settlement to the court can the litigants control whether the court will order one or more parties to pay costs, and (b) the plaintiff (claimant) usually prefers for the settlement to be given the effect of a judgment.[edit] Criminal cases
In criminal matters, the closest parallel to a settlement is a plea bargain, although this differs in several important respects, particularly the ability of the presiding judge to reject the terms of a settlement.[edit] See also
Arizona Discovery Law
Arizona Discovery Law
Evidence – Discovery – Arizona
Definitions
Discovery: A procedure designed to allow disclosure of information between Plaintiffs and Defendants.Written questions, oral questioning, document production and admissions requests are generally allowed.Discovery was designed to to prevent trial by ambush.
Interrogatories: Written questions from Plaintiff to Defendant, or from Defendant to Plaintiff.The questions are mailed to the Plaintiff, Defendant or the attorney for response in writing. The answers or responses are usually due between 20-30 days.
Deposition: A procedure where verbal questions are asked a Plaintiff or Defendant for immediate response. Depositions are usually recorded by a court reporter, who swears the person to tell the truth before questioning begins.
Production of Documents: The method of obtaining documents from the other party relevant to the case such as all documents a party intends to introduce at trial.
Requests for Admissions: Written questions where you request the other party to admit or deny some relevant fact.
Objections: Objections may be made to all discovery questions if the questions are not relevant, or likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
Civil Procedure Rules: Virtually all states have adopted a version of civil procedure rules which include rules dealing with discovery.
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Arizona has adopted the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure which contain rules governing discovery. The discovery rules also apply in divorce actions.
Discovery Methods: Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission. Rule 26(a)
Scope: Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set forth in subdivision (a) may be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from some other source that is either more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties’ resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. The court may act upon its own initiative after reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under subdivision (c). Rule 26(b)
Experts: (A) A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial.
(B) A party may through interrogatories or by deposition discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions (b)(4)(A) and (b)(4)(B) of this rule; and (ii) with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (b)(4)(B) of this rule the court shall require the party seeking discovery to pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.
(D) In all cases including medical malpractice cases. each side shall presumptively be entitled to only one independent expert on an issue, except upon a showing of good cause. Where there are multiple parties on a side and the parties cannot agree as to which independent expert will be called on an issue, the court shall designate the independent expert to be called or, upon the showing of good cause, may allow more than one independent expert to be called. In medical malpractice cases, each party shall presumptively be entitled to only one standard-of-care expert. A defendant may testify on the issue of that defendant’s standard-of-care in addition to that defendant’s independent expert witness and the court shall not be required to allow the plaintiff an additional expert witness on the issue of the standard-of-care. Rule 26(b)(4)
Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken: Within the United States or within a territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, depositions shall be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States, the State of Arizona, or of the place where the examination is held, or before a person appointed by the court in which the action is pending. A person so appointed has power to administer oaths and take testimony. Depositions may be taken in this state or anywhere upon notice provided by these Rules without a commission, letters rogatory or other writ. The term officer as used in Rules 30, 31 and 32 includes a person appointed by the court or designated by the parties under Rule 29.
Upon proof that the notice to take a deposition outside this state has been given as provided by these Rules, the party seeking such deposition may, but is not required, after one full day’s notice to the other parties, have issued by the clerk, in the form given in such notice, a commission or letters rogatory or other like writ either in lieu of the notice to take the deposition or supplementary thereto. Failure to file written objections to such form before or at the time of its issuance shall be a waiver of any objection thereto. Any objection shall be heard and determined forthwith by the court or judge thereof. Rule 28(a)
In a foreign country, depositions may be taken (1) on notice before a person authorized to administer oaths in the place in which the examination is held, either by the law thereof or by the law of the United States, or (2) before a person commissioned by the court, and a person so commissioned shall have the power by virtue of the commission to administer any necessary oath and take testimony, or (3) pursuant to a letter rogatory. A commission or a letter rogatory shall be issued on application and notice and on terms that are just and appropriate. It is not requisite to the issuance of a commission or a letter rogatory that the taking of the deposition in any other manner is impracticable or inconvenient; and both a commission and a letter rogatory may be issued in proper cases. A notice or commission may designate the person before whom the deposition is to be taken either by the name or descriptive title. A letter rogatory may be addressed “To the Appropriate Authority in (here name the country).” Evidence obtained in response to a letter rogatory need not be excluded merely for the reason that it is not a verbatim transcript or that the testimony was not taken under oath or for any similar departure from the requirements for depositions taken within the United States under these rules. Rule 28(b)
Stipulations: Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties may by stipulation (1) provide that depositions may be taken before any person, at any time or place, upon any notice, and in any manner and when so taken may be used like other depositions, and (2) modify the procedures provided by these rules for other methods of discovery, including extending the time provided in Rules 33, 34, and 36 for responses to discovery. Rule 29
Depositions
After commencement of the action, the testimony of parties or any expert witnesses expected to be called may be taken by deposition upon oral examination. Depositions of document custodians may be taken to secure production of documents and to establish evidentiary foundation. No other depositions shall be taken except upon:
(1) agreement of all parties;If the plaintiff seeks to take a deposition prior to the expiration of 30 days after service of the summons and complaint upon any defendant or service which is completed under Rule 4.2 of these rules, leave of court, granted with or without notice, is required except that leave is not required:
(2) an order of the court following a motion demonstrating good cause, or
(3) an order of the court following a Comprehensive Pretrial Conference pursuant to Rule 16(c).
(1) if a defendant has served a notice of taking deposition or otherwise sought discovery or;The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by subpoena as provided in Rule 45. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes. Rule 30(a)
(2) if special notice is given as provided in subdivision (b)(2) of this rule.
(1) Absent a stipulation of all parties to the action or an order of the court authorizing a briefer notice, a party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give notice in writing to every other party to the action at least ten days prior to the date of the deposition. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs. If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced as set forth in the subpoena shall be attached to or included in the notice.
(2) Leave of court is not required for the taking of a deposition by plaintiff if the notice (A) states that the person to be examined is about to go out of the State of Arizona, and will be unavailable for examination unless the person’s deposition is taken before expiration of the 30-day period, and (B) sets forth facts to support the statement. The plaintiff’s attorney shall sign the notice, and the attorney’s signature constitutes a certification by the attorney that to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief the statement and supporting facts are true. The sanctions provided by Rule 11(a) are applicable to the certification. If a party shows that when the party was served with notice under this subdivision (b)(2) the party was unable through the exercise of diligence to obtain counsel to represent the party at the taking of the deposition, the deposition may not be used against the party.
(3) The court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time for taking the deposition.
(4) The parties may stipulate in writing or the court may upon motion order that the testimony at a deposition be recorded by other than stenographic means. The stipulation or order shall designate the person before whom the deposition shall be taken, the manner of recording, preserving and filing the deposition, and may include other provisions to assure that the recorded testimony will be accurate and trustworthy. A party may arrange to have a stenographic transcription made at the party’s own expense. Any changes made by the witness, the witness’ signature identifying the deposition as the witness’ own or the statement of the officer that is required if the witness does not sign as provided in subdivision (e), and the certification of the officer required by subdivision (f) shall be set forth in a writing to accompany a deposition recorded by nonstenographic means.
(5) The notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request made in compliance with Rule 34 for the production of documents and tangible things at the taking of the deposition. The procedure of Rule 34 shall apply to the request.
(6) A party may in the party’s notice name as the deponent a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency and designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which that person will testify. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization. This subdivision (b)(6) does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized in these rules.
(7) The parties may stipulate or the court may order that a deposition be taken by telephone. For the purpose of this Rule and Rules 28(a), 37(a)(1), 45(c)(3)(A)(ii), and 45(e), a deposition is taken in the county where the deponent is to answer questions propounded to the deponent. Rule 30(b)
Depositions shall be of reasonable length. The oral deposition of any party or witness, including expert witnesses, whenever taken, shall not exceed four (4) hours in length, except pursuant to stipulation of the parties, or, upon motion and a showing of good cause. The court shall impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 16(f) for unreasonable, groundless, abusive or obstructionist conduct. At any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending or the court in the county where the deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting the examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition as provided in Rule 26(c). If the order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion. Rule 30(d)
Interrogatories
Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association of governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may, without leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 40 days after the service of the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 60 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant, or execution of a waiver of service, by that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. The party submitting the interrogatories may move for an order under Rule 37(a) with respect to any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory. Rule 33(a)
Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed or until a pretrial conference or other later time. Rule 33(b)
(a)Except as provided in these Rules, a party shall not serve upon any other party more than forty (40) interrogatories, which may be any combination of uniform or non-uniform interrogatories. Anyuniform interrogatory and its subparts shall be counted as one interrogatory. Any subpart to a non-uniform interrogatory shall be considered as a separate interrogatory.
(b) Stipulations to Serve Additional Interrogatories. If a party believes that good cause exists for the service of more than forty (40) interrogatories upon any other party, that party shall consult with the party upon whom the additional interrogatories would be served and attempt to secure a written stipulation as to the number of additional interrogatories that may be served.
(c) Leave of Court to Serve Additional Interrogatories. If a stipulationpermitting the service of additional interrogatories is not secured, a party desiring to serve additional interrogatories may do so only by leave of court. Upon written motion or application showing good cause therefor, the court in its discretion may grant to a party leave to serve a reasonable number of additional interrogatories upon any other party. The party seeking leave to serve additional interrogatories shall have the burden of establishing that the issues presented in the action warrant the service of additional interrogatories, or that such additional interrogatories are a more practical or less burdensome method of obtaining the information sought, or other good cause therefor. No such motion or application may be heard or considered by the court unless accompanied by the proposed additional interrogatories to be served, and by the certification of counsel required by Rule 37(a)( 2)C) of these Rules. The proposed additional interrogatories shall only be attached to the judge’s copy of the motion and the copy served on opposing parties.
(d) Spacing. Whenever interrogatories are used, a space sufficient for the answer shall be left immediately below the question. The answering party shall insert the answer in the space below each interrogatory, or if it requires more space, on a separate sheet which restates the question before giving the answer.
(e) Nonuniform Interrogatories. The method of propounding and answering Nonuniform Interrogatories shall be as follows:
(1) A party propounding interrogatories, other than Uniform Interrogatories, shall serve upon the answering party and not the clerk of the court, the original and one copy of the interrogatories and shall serve a copy upon every other party.(f) Uniform Interrogatories. The interrogatories set forth in the Appendix of Forms following these Rules are denominated as Uniform Interrogatories, and are approved for use as a standard or guide in preparation by counsel of interrogatories under Rule 33 of these Rules. The use of Uniform Interrogatories shall be governed by Rule 33 of these Rules, and this Rule. The use of Uniform Interrogatories is not mandatory. The interrogatories should serve as a guide only, and may or may not be approved as to either form or substance in a particular case. They are not to be used as a standard set of interrogatories for submission in all cases. Each interrogatory should be used only where it fits the particular case.The method of propounding and answering Uniform Interrogatories shall be as follows:
(2) The answering party shall, within the time permitted by law, serve upon the propounding party and all other parties one copy of the interrogatories and typewritten answers.
(1) A party propounding Uniform Interrogatories shall serve a copy of a Notice of Service of Uniform Interrogatories upon each other party to the action.Production
(2) The Notice of Service of Uniform Interrogatories shall contain the names of the party and attorney to whom the request is made and the number only of each uniform interrogatory for which the propounding party requests an answer.
(3) The answering party shall:
(i) reproduce the text of each interrogatory requested and insert the answer below it;
(ii) serve the original upon the propounding party and a copy upon all other parties. Rule 33.1
Any party may serve on any other party requests (1) to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor’s behalf, to inspect and copy, any designated documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono records, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, translated through detection devices into reasonable usable form when translation is practicably necessary) or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) and which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served; or (2) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation thereon, within the scope of Rule 26(b). Rule 34(a)
The requests may, without leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party. The requests shall set forth the items to be inspected either by individual item or by specific category, and describe each item and specific category with reasonable particularity. The request(s) shall not, without leave of court, cumulatively include more than ten (10) distinct items or specific categories of items. Each request shall specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts. If a party believes that good cause exists for more than ten (10) distinct items or categories of items, that party shall consult with the party upon whom a request would be served and attempt to secure a written stipulation to that effect. The party upon whom a request is served shall serve a written response within 40 days after the service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 60 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant, or execution of a waiver of service by that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified. The party submitting a request may move for an order under Rule 37(a) with respect to any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection as requested. A party who produced documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request. Rule 34(b)
Physical and Mental Examinations Of Persons
When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician or psychologist or to produce for examination the person in the party’s custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. The person to be examined shall have the right to have a representative present during the examination, unless the presence of that representative may adversely affect the outcome of the examination. The person to be examined shall have the right to record by audiotape any physical examination. A mental examination may be recorded by audiotape, unless such recording may adversely affect the outcome of the examination. Upon good cause shown, a physical or mental examination may be video-recorded. A copy of any record made of a physical or mental examination shall be provided to any party upon request. Rule 35(a)
(1) If requested by the party against whom an order is made under Rule 35(a) or the person examined, the party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to the requestor, within twenty days of the examination, a copy of the detailed written report of the examining licensed professional setting out the professional’s findings, including the results of all tests made, diagnoses and conditions, together with like reports of all earlier examinations of the same condition and copies of all written or recorded notes filed out by the examiner and the person examined at the time of the examination, providing access to the original written or recorded notes for purposes of comparing same with the copies. After delivery the party causing the examination shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party against whom the order is made a like report of any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same condition, unless, in the case of a report of examination of a person not a party, the party shows that such party is unable to obtain it. The court on motion may make an order against a party requiring delivery of a report on such terms as are just, and if a physician or psychologist fails or refuses to make a report the court may exclude the physician’s or psychologist’s testimony if offered at the trial.
(2) By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege the party may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine the party in respect of the same mental or physical condition.
(3) This subdivision applies to examinations made by agreement of the parties, unless the agreement expressly provides otherwise. This subdivision does not preclude discovery of a report of an examining physician or psychologist or the taking of a deposition of the physician or psychologist in accordance with the provisions of any other rule.
Rule 35(b)
Requests for Admissions
A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any documents described in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying. The request may, without leave of court, be served upon the plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint upon that party. Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless, within (40) days after service of the request, or, in the case of a defendant, within 60 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant, or execution of a waiver of service by that defendant, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party’s attorney. If objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny. A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; the party may, subject to the provisions of Rule 37(c), deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it. The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections. Unless the court determines that an objection is justified, it shall order that an answer be served. If the court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this rule, it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. The court may, in lieu of these orders, determine that final disposition of the request be made at a pre-trial conference or at a designated time prior to trial. The provisions of Rule 37(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred inrelation to the motion. Rule 36(a)
Each request shall contain only one factual matter or request for genuineness of all documents or categories of documents. Each party without leave of court shall be entitled to submit no more than twenty-five (25) requests in any case except upon: (1) agreement of all parties; (2) an order of the court following a motion demonstrating good cause, or (3) an order of the court following a Comprehensive Pretrial Conference pursuant to Rule 16(c). Any interrogatories accompanying requests shall be deemed interrogatories under Rule 33.1. Rule 36(b)
Compel 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. An application for an order to a party may be made to the court in the county in which the action is pending, or, in matters relating to a deposition, to the court in the county where the deposition is being taken. An application for an order to a person who is not a party shall be made to the court in the county where the discovery is being, or is to be, taken.
(2) Motion.
(A) If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26.1, any other party may move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.Domestic Actions Discovery Notes
(B) If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Rule 30 or 31, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a), or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before applying for an order. Rule 37(a)
If you require extra time to respond to discovery, you should ask the other side for an extension in writing. It may also be necessary to enter an order granting the extension to protect your rights.
Discovery questions are limited in number so select the most important questions to ask the other side. Don’t waste your requests writing questions that you already know the answer to.
Related Arizona Legal Forms
- Discovery Interrogatories for Divorce Proceeding for either Plaintiff or Defendant – Another Form
- Discovery Interrogatories from Defendant to Plaintiff with Production Requests
- Discovery Interrogatories from Plaintiff to Defendant with Production Requests
- Interrogatories to Defendant for Motor Vehicle Accident
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)