This fourth installment of the “Welcome to California Business Litigation” series—Part 2 in a two-part series dedicated to examining procedural distinctions between California state court civil procedures and Federal Rules-based procedures—provides a brief overview of some of the differences and distinctions between discovery in California state court and Federal Rules-based jurisdictions.

In this series of articles, Snell & Wilmer lawyers familiar with both California and non-California business litigation practices will share a series of tips—both procedural and substantive—that in house counsel may find useful in navigating the shoals of California business litigation.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense” is subject to discovery. And information is relevant if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The permissible scope of discovery in California is similar: “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”