In Norwest Bank (Minnesota), N.A. v. Symington, 197 Ariz. 181, 187, P26, 3 P.3d 1101, 1107 (App. 2000), Norwest Bank sued Symington for a deficiency judgment for his failure to satisfy his obligation as a guarantor on a loan after foreclosing on the property. 197 Ariz. at 183, P3, 3 P.3d at 1103. After three years of litigation, the court permitted Symington to file an amended answer admitting the allegations as Symington lacked the financial resources to continue litigation. Id. at P4. The only remaining issue was to value the property on which Norwest Bank had foreclosed to determine the amount of the deficiency. Id. at P5. Norwest Bank submitted two appraisals valuing the property at foreclosure at $ 3 million, but it failed to disclose to Symington a previous appraisal valuing the property at $ 6 million. Id. at 183-84, P5-7, 13 P.3d at 1103-04. Symington filed a Rule 60(c)(3) motion alleging that the deficiency judgment was the product of Norwest Bank's violation of Rule 26.1. Id. at 184, P8, 3 P.3d at 1104. The trial court denied the motion. Id. at P10. The Court reversed on appeal. In addition to finding that Norwest Bank's violation of Rule 26.1 constituted "misconduct" under Rule 60(c)(3), we found "that the nondisclosure substantially interfered with the ability to fully and fairly prepare for trial." Id. at 188, P32, 3 P.3d at 1108. The moving party bears the burden of showing substantial interference by either "establishing the material's likely worth as trial evidence or by elucidating its value as a tool for obtaining meaningful discovery." Id. at 187, P23, 3 P.3d at 1107.