CCP §§ 2024.020, 2024.050 Were Not Complied With, And That Was Prejudicial.
In Cooke v. Tayac, Case No. A170044 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 12, 2024) (unpublished), defendants moved for discovery sanctions after the discovery cut-off and formal close of discovery. The lower court granted the defense motion for sanctions in the amount of $6,075. The aggrieved party appealed, obtaining a reversal. The request for sanctions was untimely and was prejudicial. Defendants failed to comply with CCP §§ 2024.020 and 2024.050, which required them to seek leave of court to file the motion for sanctions and to meet/confer and file a corresponding declaration. The motion was untimely and likely prejudicial given that the lower court had to determine whether factors such as lack of diligence were in play, unless equitable estoppel or other principles were at play—with nothing demonstrating those exceptions applied. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1585-1588 (2008).)