In Arizona, a fight over amending a pleading will fit on three pages.

Rule 7.5 takes effect on January 1, 2027

On January 1, 2027, Arizona's new Rule 7.5 will govern contested requests for leave to amend pleadings, along with discovery and disclosure disputes and certain electronically stored information disputes.

Arizona's high court adopted the rule in Order No. R-26-0017 on August 25, 2026. The order was filed August 27 and signed by Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer. It also amends Rules 15(a), 26(d) and (e), 37(a), 45(c), and 45.2(d).

The State Bar of Arizona, through General Counsel Jessica J. Fotinos, filed the petition on January 12, 2026. It sought “a more broadly applicable expedited dispute resolution process.” The State Bar filed a Notice of Errata on May 1, correcting two cross-references to Rule 26(d) in Rule 26(e)(1) and (2). It filed an Amended Petition on June 1.

One public comment, from Paige A. Martin of the City of Phoenix Law Department, supported the petition and said the expansion “will save parties time and money.” Court of Appeals Judge Samuel A. Thumma also filed a comment. The comment deadline was May 1.

Before publication, the Archivar editorial desk read the signed order beside the State Bar's redline and the May 1 notice of errata. In the adopted text, the two stale references in Rule 26(e)(1) and (2) now point to Rule 7.5.

A contested amendment request will use one joint statement

Rule 15(a)(2) still provides that leave to amend “must be freely given when justice requires.” The new procedure changes how a contested request is presented, not that standard.

Unless the court permits full briefing, a party seeking leave to amend without the written consent of all opposing parties who have appeared must use Rule 7.5. The request goes into a joint statement of no more than three pages of explanatory text. Each side receives 1.5 pages.

The joint statement must include a Rule 7.1(h) certificate showing good faith consultation. It also must comply with Rule 7.4, which requires each party to make itself reasonably available and cooperate in preparing joint documents. Rule 7.4 permits sanctions.

The proposed amended pleading must be attached to the joint statement. It must show changes with bracketing or strike-through for deletions and underlining for additions. If the court permits full briefing, the proposed pleading instead goes with the motion.

The opposing party's written consent remains an alternative. If all opposing parties who have appeared provide written consent, Rule 15(a)(2) permits the amendment without the contested Rule 7.5 process. If consent is absent, the parties must prepare one joint filing that presents both positions.

The rule permits additional briefing or other submissions only if the court orders them. The court may schedule a hearing on its own motion or at a party's request. It should schedule the hearing at the earliest convenient time unless it determines that a hearing would not assist or that good cause supports ruling without one.

The court must issue a written order or written ruling resolving the dispute. Afterward, a party may file materials needed to create a record of the dispute.

If the court grants leave, the amending party must file and serve the amended pleading within 10 days after entry of the order, unless the court orders otherwise. The 10-day period is not new. Rule 15(a)(5) changes the wording from filing after the “motion” to filing after “leave” is granted.

Discovery disputes keep the three-page format but change in three ways

Arizona has required a joint statement for discovery and disclosure disputes since July 1, 2018. Order R-17-0010, filed August 31, 2017, created the prior Rule 26(d) process.

The old rule covered anything that could be brought as a Rule 26(c) protective-order motion or a Rule 37(a) motion to compel. It required no more than three pages of explanatory text, with 1.5 pages per party, and a Rule 7.1(h) good faith consultation certificate. It barred exhibits. Briefing occurred only if the court ordered it. Parties could jointly telephone the court to request a hearing, and the court resolved the dispute by minute entry. The old rule stated that filings in a Rule 26(d) proceeding “are not motions.”

New Rule 26(d)(1) sends discovery and disclosure disputes to Rule 7.5 unless the court permits full briefing or all parties stipulate to the relief sought. The old detailed text is deleted and replaced by that cross-reference. Rule 26(d) still permits parties to seek court intervention by telephone during a deposition without filing a written statement.

The new Rule 7.5 format allows limited exhibits. Unless the court orders otherwise, the joint statement may include the discovery request, objection, or response directly applicable to the dispute. The rule also permits an applicable proposed amended pleading in amendment disputes.

The resolution also changes. The court must issue a written order or written ruling, rather than resolving the dispute by minute entry. Rule 37(a) motions to compel are now subject to Rule 7.5, and Rule 37(a)(5)'s expense provisions apply to requests made through the joint statement. That includes expenses and attorney's fees when relief is granted, denied, or granted in part.

Some disputes stay outside Rule 7.5 or get their own path

A request to file a document under seal remains governed by Rule 5.4. Rule 26(c)(5) expressly excludes sealing requests from Rule 7.5.

Subpoena-compliance motions also remain outside the expedited procedure unless the subpoenaed person agrees. Rule 45(c)(6)(C) excludes motions to compel, quash, or seek a protective order concerning a subpoena when the subpoenaed person has not agreed to use Rule 7.5. The Rule 7.1(h) good faith consultation certificate remains required for those motions.

Rule 26(e) addresses a party's claim that electronically stored information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense. That party must file its affidavit of burden or expense with the Rule 7.5(a) joint statement, or with a Rule 26(c) motion.

Rule 45.2(d) places preservation disputes involving electronically stored information within Rule 7.5 when the parties are in a pending action. A nonparty that receives a preservation request may use Rule 7.5 or move for a Rule 26(c) protective order. If the nonparty files that motion, it attaches a Rule 7.1(h) certificate.

The effective date creates a dated filing requirement

The order takes effect January 1, 2027. It does not contain a separate transition provision for disputes already pending on that date.

For a contested amendment request filed under the new procedure, the default presentation will be 1.5 pages per side in a joint statement, plus the redlined proposed pleading, rather than a full motion, response, and reply. Full briefing depends on the court's decision to permit it.

For discovery disputes, the three-page structure remains, but the parties may attach directly applicable discovery materials, may avoid the procedure through a stipulation to the relief sought, and will receive a written order or ruling. Expense exposure under Rule 37(a)(5) applies to a Rule 7.5 request.

Archivar is an operating system for a law firm: it answers every call 24/7 in English and Spanish, runs intake, manages matters, and remembers everything the firm does. A procedural change effective January 1, 2027, and a 10-day clock to file and serve an amended pleading after leave is granted, are dated details that belong in each affected matter's record.

For Arizona superior court filings after the effective date, the questions are whether the dispute belongs in a Rule 7.5 joint statement, whether written consent or a stipulation removes it from that procedure, and whether a stated exception applies. When leave to amend is granted, the filing and service deadline is 10 days unless the court orders otherwise.

From January 1, 2027, a contested request for leave to amend in Arizona defaults to a three-page joint statement.

Discovery disputes keep the same page limit, with limited exhibits and a written order at the end.

The standard for granting leave, freely given when justice requires, does not change.