How often do you see this objection? Irrelevancy is one of the garbage objections that parties throw out in response to discovery.  Do you wonder if opposing counsel actually understands what is relevant in discovery?  Did you ever question if opposing counsel ever read the statute let alone the case law? So, what can you discover…

Code of Civil Procedure  §2017.010 titled “Matters subject to discovery” states

Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any 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. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property. [Emphasis added]

Relevant to the subject matter There is no precise definition as to what “relevant to the subject matter” means.  However, the court in Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup. Ct (1992) 7 CA4th 1384, 1392 held that it is broader than relevancy to the issues which determines admissibility at trial. The court in Gonzalez v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 33 CA4th 1539, 1546 stated that for discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.  See Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2025) at 8:66-8:66.1

Reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence   Admissibility is not required.  The test is whether the information sought might reasonably lead to other evidence that would be admissible.  Davies v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 36 C3d 291, 301.  The statutory language makes it clear that the concept of relevancy is broader that of “admissibility into evidence.” A party is entitled to discovery information (if it not otherwise subject to a valid objection) that may constitute, heresay or inadmissible opinions and conclusions. California Civil Discovery Practice (CEB 4th Ed. 2025) §1.36 citing Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 CA2d 6 and Greyhound Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 C2d 355, 359.  The possibility that the subject matter may be inadmissible at trial is not a ground for objection if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Chapin v. Superior Court (1966) 239 CA2d 851.

Parties will often use the “relevance” objection to try and frame the issues and set up a motion for summary judgment.  In some areas of litigation, notably insurance litigation, landlord tenant habitability and employment, the goal may be to avoid embarrassing statements that could be lurking in files where they were made not expecting them to be public.  Or it can be a tool to limit discovery and avoid large bills for voluminous document production.  Courts will take into consideration the size and complexity of the case with regard to the burden and value of the information sought.  Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2025) at 8:66.2 citing Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Sup. Ct (1992) 7 CA4th 1384, 1391  So, be mindful and be prepared to argue relevance and burden simultaneously.  

Below are some specific examples of relevant discovery: 

  • Information that relates to a claim or defense of any party. California Civil Discovery Practice ( CEB 4th Ed. 2025) §1.38  If it relates to any cause of action or affirmative defense, it is likely discoverable.
  • The names and locations of witnesses are discoverable.  See CCP §2017.010 An objection on third party privacy rights will usually not be sustained, but the court may grant a protective order limiting who can see the information (i.e., parties only, attorney’s eyes only) depending on the circumstances. 
  • Fishing trips are permissible. Just be prepared to respond to the question, “What are you fishing for?”  The court will take into consideration the discovery method used and the burden and cost to the responding party.  Greyhound Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 C2d 355, 359.   Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2025) at 8:72 – 8:72.2.  
  • A party cannot prevent discovery by stipulating to whatever issue is involved.  See Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2025) at 8:70 – 8:71.  For example, you cannot deny producing plaintiff’s prior or subsequent employment records in a harassment case because you are not making a wage loss claim.  There may be other information in the employment records that may lead to admissible evidence.  
  • It is not required that a pleading be legally sufficient for information pertaining to its subject matter to be considered relevant.  Discovery may be used to obtain information that is both relevant to the subject matter of a defective pleading and necessary to cure the defect. California Civil Discovery Practice (CEB 4th Ed. 2025) 1.39 citing Keely v. Price (1972) 27 CA3d 209, 216.

Court’s Analysis 

The party asserting the objection “irrelevant’ has the burden of persuasion in establishing good cause as to why the discovery should not be responded to. Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 CA3d 487.  

In determining the proper scope of discovery, the court conducts a fact-intensive process requiring the application of “reason, logic and common sense.” Lipton v. Sup. Ct. (1996) CA4th 1481, 1490-1491.  

Doubts about relevance should ordinarily be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. California Civil Discovery Practice (CEB 4th Ed. 2025) §1.37 citing Sheperd v. Superior Court (1976) 17 C3d 107, 120 (overruled in part on other grounds.)

REMEMBER—If you can articulate why, you think the information might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence then you should be able to discover it.