I'm gonna go deep here, but it seems to me that the first time the defense complained the court was happy to take the state's word without inquiry. The second time, the court made an inquiry, then took the state's word. Maybe this is the third strike (not to mix sports metaphors.)
ETA: I guess I should point out that the state asserted 1) that it didn't talk to Celebrite and 2) it didn't talk to "anyone else." Those assertions do not include "I found this out on my own."
The first two motions for money sanctions are still alive, to be decided after trial.
This one has much stronger assertions by defense, and so will serve to clarify the court's rationale for finding a violation in the first place. Since the defense has the evidence, and she's willing to entertain continuance if necessary to process the evidence, she's going to be able to conclude there is no prejudice to the defense.
With the cell phone reports, the issue isn't finding out on his own, it's possession of the reports that flow from the BIN file. Bernardo might skate on false statements grounds, but that doesn't save his bacon on withholding of evidence.
O'Mara renewed his complaint about the hospitalization lie. I wish he would have reminded the court that the state has still not stated WHEN it learned of the existence of W8's written statement. Not relevant in the Zimmerman case, but it sure does go to the integrity of the prosecutor, and by golly, the court should care about that.