The term “Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence” defines the scope of permissible discovery in legal proceedings, focusing on information that could lead to trial-admissible evidence. The discovery process is applied liberally, allowing for a broad range of information, including hearsay, stipulated matters, and cumulative evidence, to be gathered.
By Brad Nakase, Attorney
Email | Call (888) 600-8654
Have a quick question? I answered nearly 1500 FAQs.
The term “Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Discovery of Admissible Evidence” is instrumental in defining the boundaries of acceptable discovery. It emphasizes that discovery should encompass any data that could reasonably pave the way to other trial-admissible evidence. This definition hinges on principles of reason, logic, and common sense. This was highlighted in the case Lipton v. Superior Court (Lawyers’ Mutual Insurance Co.) (1996), where the court explained the scope of discovery in these terms.
Admissibility of information at trial is not a prerequisite for its discovery. The criterion is whether the data in question could reasonably lead to other admissible evidence. This is outlined in CCP § 2017(a) and was elaborated in Davies v. Superior Court (State of California) (1984). The court’s role in a discovery motion is not to ascertain the eventual relevance and admissibility of the information at trial but to predict if the information might be relevant or admissible.
A personal injury lawyer frequently advocate for extensive discovery, including information that may not directly lead to admissible evidence, to uncover a fuller context of the case and potential leads that could strengthen their client’s position.”
The standards of “relevance to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” are applied liberally. Doubts are typically resolved in favor of allowing discovery, especially when the case’s exact issues are not yet crystal clear. This approach was upheld in Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (Perry) (1982).
Objections based on the notion that opposing counsel is on a ‘fishing expedition’ are not valid reasons to refuse discovery. The Discovery Act explicitly permits discovery of matters “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence,” as stated in CCP § 2017(a). This was further explained in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (Clay) (1961) and Gonzalez v. Superior Court (City of San Fernando) (1995). However, there are limits to such expeditions, especially regarding insufficient identification of requested information, unduly burdening the adversary, and balance between the burden and the value of the information.
The court can limit the broad scope of discovery through protective orders, as provided in CCP § 2017(c). These orders may be issued when the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of discovery clearly outweighs the potential to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The court’s inherent power to weigh the benefits versus the burdens of proposed discovery is recognized.
Various common issues arise in applying the “relevant to subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” standards:
Have a quick question? We answered nearly 2000 FAQs.
See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment Law
Most recent blogs:
Contact our attorney.
20240124