Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56
Rule 56 was amended in significant respects in 2013. The 2013 amendments adopted some of the 2007 federal stylistic revisions, while retaining other unique aspects of Arizona's rule (such as the provisions of subdivision (c)(3) governing supporting and opposing statements of fact, which have no counterpart in FRCP). The 2017 amendments retain the substance of the 2013 amendments, but propose additional stylistic changes to simplify and clarify the rule. Some of the subdivisions of the current rule are reordered to conform to the structure of Federal Rule 56.
In addition to stylistic improvements, subdivision (c)(2) is modified to eliminate provisions governing stipulated or court-ordered extensions of briefing schedules. Those provisions of the former rule predated the adoption of Rule, which now provides uniform procedures governing and limiting the extension of briefing schedules on motions. Rule 's provisions apply to motions for summary judgment under Rule 56. The structure of Rule 56(c)(3) is modified to add subdivisions and headings, consistent with the federal rule stylistic conventions. Former subdivisions (e)(1) and (e)(2), governing affidavits, are moved to subdivisions (c)(5) and (c)(6), respectively, to conform more closely to the federal rule's structure.
Subdivision (f) of the former rule is moved to subdivision (d), to conform to the federal rule's structure. The revised rule now incorporates into the rule's text the specificity requirements set forth in Arizona case law for obtaining a continuance to conduct additional discovery, as set forth in Simon v. Safeway, Inc., 217 Ariz. 330, 173 P.3d 1031 (App. 2007). See Rule 56(d)(1)(A) (identifying five factors that must be addressed, if applicable, in an affidavit supporting a Rule 56(d) request).