Civil procedure update: New changes to CA discovery procedure

January, 2024 - California Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090 has been amended to implement a procedure for initial disclosures of information and documents similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The changes apply to civil actions filed on or after January 1, 2024, and remain in effect until January 1, 2027.

The amended rule imposes new discovery obligations requiring parties to make initial witness and document disclosures within sixty days of another party’s request. It also requires a party to provide any insurance policies that may be in effect to satisfy a potential judgment against that party.  Under the prior law, the parties first had to stipulate and then the court had to order the parties to provide initial disclosures, and the deadline to make such disclosures was forty-five days after the court’s order.

Unlike Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which includes an ongoing duty for parties to supplement or correct their initial disclosure upon learning new information, under section 2016.090, parties may propound a supplemental demand twice before the initial setting of a trial date and once after the initial trial date has been set.  

The initial disclosure requirements do not apply to unlawful detainer cases, small claims matters, or where preference has been granted.

Failure to comply with the initial disclosure requirements under this section results in a mandatory $1,000 sanction, up from $250 before the amendment.

Notably, the amended rule is more expansive than the prior iteration as well as Rule 26. The amended rule mandates that the parties must disclose witnesses and documents that not only support their claims but that are relevant to the case as well. This broad inclusion means that parties may need to disclose witnesses and documents that could be harmful to their case. The amended rule also may force parties to assess their claims at an earlier stage of the litigation and has the potential to reduce the amount of discovery needed.

Previous
Previous

Firm files wrongful death suit in Sacramento Superior Court

Next
Next

Court rejects Deloitte’s attempt to evade liability for employment retaliation against UCLA whistleblower