§ 2024.050.Motions to complete discovery closer to initial trial date, or to reopen

When the fixed cutoffs elsewhere in this chapter do not give a party enough room, this section supplies the escape valve: a noticed motion asking the court for permission to complete discovery, or have a discovery motion heard, closer to trial than the general rule would allow, or to reopen discovery once a new trial date has been set. The motion must come with a meet-and-confer declaration, carrying forward this Title's insistence that parties try to work out scheduling disputes before asking a judge to referee them.

The court's decision is not a formality. The statute directs it to weigh any relevant factor, including the necessity and reasons behind the discovery sought, the diligence, or lack of it, the moving party showed in pursuing discovery or getting a motion heard earlier, whether granting the request would derail the trial date, disrupt the court's calendar, or prejudice another party, and how much time has passed between the previously set trial date and the one now in place. That list gives a judge real room to deny a request from a party who waited too long without reason, while still allowing relief where the delay was justified and the other side would not be unfairly harmed.

Subdivision (c) adds teeth to the process itself: the court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion under this section, unless that party or attorney acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. That mirrors the substantial-justification safe harbor running through the rest of the sanctions chapter, discouraging meritless motions to extend or reopen discovery just as the chapter discourages meritless discovery motions generally.