Code Details

Code of Civil Procedure – CCP
PART 4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [1855 – 2107] ( Heading of Part 4 amended by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299. )
TITLE 4. CIVIL DISCOVERY ACT [2016.010 – 2036.050] ( Title 4 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )
CHAPTER 2. Scope of Discovery [2017.010 – 2017.320] ( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )

ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [2017.010 – 2017.020] ( Article 1 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )

Exact Statute Text

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.

(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 72, Sec. 8. (SB 1574) Effective January 1, 2013.)

CCP § 2017.010 Summary

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 defines the broad scope of discovery in civil lawsuits. It establishes that, unless a court order limits it, any party in a pending action can request information (discovery) about any matter that is:
1. Not privileged: This means it isn’t protected by legal privileges like attorney-client privilege or the right to privacy.
2. Relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit or a motion: The information must have a logical connection to the core issues of the case or a specific request made to the court.
3. Either admissible in evidence or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence: This is a crucial standard, meaning even if the information itself can’t be presented at trial, it can be discovered if it might help find other evidence that *can* be used.

The statute clarifies that discovery can apply to a party’s own claims or defenses, or those of any other party in the case. It also explicitly lists the types of information that can be discovered, including:

• The identity and location of individuals who have knowledge of discoverable matters.
• The existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of documents, electronically stored information (ESI), tangible items, land, or other property.

In essence, CCP § 2017.010 sets a wide net for information gathering in civil litigation, aiming to ensure parties have access to all relevant, non-privileged facts before trial, subject to court oversight.

Purpose of CCP § 2017.010

The legislative purpose behind Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 is to promote fairness and efficiency in the civil justice system. Before the modern discovery rules, trials often involved a “trial by ambush,” where parties withheld critical information until the courtroom, leading to unfair surprises and prolonged litigation. This statute, and the broader Civil Discovery Act, addresses this problem by establishing a system for comprehensive, pre-trial exchange of information.

The core objectives of CCP § 2017.010 include:

• Preventing Surprise: By allowing parties to gather relevant information upfront, the statute minimizes the chances of unexpected evidence or testimony derailing a trial.
• Promoting Settlements: When both sides have a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their own case and their opponent’s, they are better positioned to evaluate settlement offers, potentially resolving disputes without the need for a full trial.
• Facilitating Accurate Outcomes: Open discovery ensures that all relevant, non-privileged facts are brought to light, allowing for more informed decisions by judges and juries and leading to more just resolutions.
• Narrowing Issues for Trial: Through discovery, parties can identify undisputed facts and focus on the contested issues, making trials more efficient.
• Expediting Litigation: While discovery can be extensive, its ultimate goal is to streamline the overall litigation process by clarifying the facts and legal arguments involved.

By setting a broad standard for discoverability – “relevant to the subject matter” and “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” – the statute ensures that parties have the tools necessary to fully investigate their claims and defenses, fostering a more transparent and equitable legal process.

Real-World Example of CCP § 2017.010

Imagine a personal injury case arising from a rear-end car accident in California. Sarah, the plaintiff, sues Mark, the defendant, alleging that Mark’s distracted driving caused the collision and her subsequent injuries, including a herniated disc.

Under CCP § 2017.010, both Sarah and Mark can engage in broad discovery:

Sarah (Plaintiff) Seeking Discovery from Mark (Defendant):

• Vehicle Repair Records: Sarah can request all repair estimates and invoices for Mark’s vehicle (a “document” and “tangible thing” showing the extent of impact). This is relevant to the forces involved in the collision and helps establish damages. It is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” regarding the accident’s severity.
• Phone Records: Sarah’s attorney might request Mark’s cell phone records from around the time of the accident. This is relevant to her claim of distracted driving. While the records themselves might not be admissible to prove distraction directly (e.g., specific app usage), they are “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” by showing if Mark was actively using his phone at the precise moment of the crash.
• Witness Information: Sarah can request the names and contact information of any persons who witnessed the accident or who Mark spoke with immediately afterward (“identity and location of persons having knowledge”).
• Insurance Policy: Sarah would also seek details of Mark’s auto insurance policy (covered by related statutes, but the *existence* of the policy itself falls under the general scope).

Mark (Defendant) Seeking Discovery from Sarah (Plaintiff):

• Medical Records: Mark’s attorney will request all of Sarah’s medical records and bills related to her alleged injuries, both before and after the accident. This is relevant to the extent of her injuries and whether any pre-existing conditions contributed to them. These are “documents” and “relevant to the subject matter” of damages.
• Employment Records: Mark might request Sarah’s employment records to verify her claims of lost wages or diminished earning capacity. These are “documents” relevant to her alleged economic damages.
• Social Media Posts: Mark’s attorney may seek Sarah’s social media posts if they contain photos or statements that contradict her claims of injury or impact on daily life. These are “electronically stored information” that could be “relevant to the subject matter” of her damages and credibility.
• Previous Accidents/Lawsuits: Mark could inquire about any prior accidents or personal injury claims Sarah has been involved in to check for patterns or pre-existing injuries.

In all these instances, the information sought is “not privileged,” “relevant to the subject matter,” and either “admissible in evidence” (like medical bills) or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” (like phone records that might indicate distraction). If either party believes a request is overly broad or seeks privileged information, they can ask the court to issue a protective order, thereby “limiting by order of the court” the scope of discovery as permitted by the statute.

Related Statutes

Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 serves as the foundational statute for the scope of discovery, but it operates within a broader framework of the Civil Discovery Act. Several other statutes are directly related or commonly referenced alongside it:

• CCP § 2017.020 – Discovery of Insurance Agreements: This statute specifically clarifies that a party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which an insurer may be liable to satisfy a judgment. This is particularly crucial in personal injury cases for assessing a defendant’s ability to pay.
• CCP § 2019.010 – Methods of Discovery: This section introduces the various tools available for conducting discovery, such as depositions, interrogatories, demands for inspection, and requests for admissions. While § 2017.010 defines *what* can be discovered, § 2019.010 outlines *how* it can be discovered.
• CCP § 2023.010 et seq. – Misuse of Discovery Process: These statutes define what constitutes a misuse of the discovery process (e.g., making an unnecessarily burdensome request or failing to respond to a legitimate request) and outline the sanctions that a court may impose for such misuse. This helps ensure parties abide by the rules set forth by § 2017.010 and other discovery statutes.
• CCP § 2030.010 et seq. – Interrogatories: These sections detail the rules and procedures for written interrogatories, which are written questions sent from one party to another, requiring written answers under oath. Interrogatories are a primary method used to discover the types of information outlined in § 2017.010.
• CCP § 2031.010 et seq. – Demands for Production of Documents, Tangible Things, and ESI: These statutes govern the process for requesting documents, electronically stored information (ESI), and other physical items. This is directly related to the list of discoverable items in § 2017.010.
• CCP § 2032.010 et seq. – Physical and Mental Examinations: These sections address discovery concerning the physical or mental condition of a party or agent, which is often highly relevant in personal injury cases where injuries are central to the claim.
• CCP § 2033.010 et seq. – Requests for Admission: These statutes allow a party to ask another party to admit or deny the truth of certain facts or the genuineness of documents, helping to narrow the scope of disputed issues for trial.

These related statutes work in concert with CCP § 2017.010 to create a comprehensive framework for pre-trial information gathering in California civil cases.

## Case Law Interpreting CCP § 2017.010

California courts have consistently interpreted Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 (and its predecessor statutes) broadly to favor discovery. The “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” standard is often the subject of judicial review.

• _Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court_ (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785: While this case predates the specific enactment of CCP § 2017.010, it is a seminal case often cited for its strong affirmation of the broad scope of discovery in California. The California Supreme Court emphasized that discovery is intended to facilitate “full disclosure” and prevent “trial by ambush.” The court stated that “the discovery statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of [some] privilege or otherwise.” The principles established here underpin the broad language of § 2017.010. ([Link to Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8644400762956270383))

• _Puerto v. Superior Court_ (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242: This case directly interprets the “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” standard within the context of the modern Civil Discovery Act, including CCP § 2017.010. The court reiterated that “discovery is to be broadly construed” and that the “reasonably calculated” standard means that “if the information sought may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, it is discoverable.” The court noted that while the information itself may not be admissible, if it provides a logical starting point for further investigation that could uncover admissible facts, it falls within the scope. ([Link to Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17822989182069733475))

• _Doe v. City of Los Angeles_ (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531: Although this case primarily deals with privacy rights in discovery, it reinforces the balancing act courts must perform. It acknowledges the broad scope of discovery under statutes like § 2017.010, but emphasizes that this scope is not limitless and must yield when information is privileged or protected by the constitutional right to privacy, unless a compelling public interest in disclosure is shown. This illustrates the “not privileged” limitation explicitly stated in § 2017.010. ([Link to Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10733560662242137574))

These cases highlight that California courts generally take an expansive view of what constitutes discoverable material, providing a robust mechanism for parties to gather information, while also acknowledging necessary limitations such as privilege and privacy.

Why CCP § 2017.010 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 is the bedrock of information gathering in California personal injury litigation. For both plaintiffs and defendants, understanding and utilizing this statute is paramount to building a strong case and achieving a favorable outcome.

For Plaintiffs (Injured Parties):

• Uncovering Evidence of Fault: This statute allows plaintiffs to seek critical evidence demonstrating the defendant’s negligence or fault, such as accident reports, witness statements, defendant’s phone records, vehicle maintenance logs, or internal company policies that may have been violated.
• Establishing Damages: Plaintiffs can use discovery to prove the full extent of their injuries and losses. This includes demanding medical records, bills, employment records for lost wages, expert reports on future medical needs, and evidence of emotional distress.
• Identifying Responsible Parties: Sometimes, the identity of all at-fault parties isn’t immediately clear. CCP § 2017.010 allows for discovery of “identity and location of persons having knowledge,” which can lead to identifying additional defendants.
• Assessing Settlement Value: By thoroughly investigating the case through discovery, plaintiff attorneys can accurately assess the claim’s value, which is crucial for effective settlement negotiations.

For Defendants (At-Fault Parties):

• Mounting a Defense: Defendants use discovery to gather information that can challenge the plaintiff’s claims of injury, fault, or damages. This includes reviewing the plaintiff’s past medical history to identify pre-existing conditions, employment records to dispute lost wages, or social media posts that contradict claimed limitations.
• Identifying Comparative Fault: Defendants can seek information that suggests the plaintiff contributed to their own injuries, potentially reducing the defendant’s liability under California’s comparative fault rules.
• Contesting Exaggerated Claims: Discovery allows defendants to probe the legitimacy and extent of the plaintiff’s claimed damages, preventing inflated demands.
• Preparing for Trial: Knowing what evidence the plaintiff possesses allows the defense to prepare counter-arguments, identify expert witnesses, and anticipate trial strategies.

For Both Clients and Lawyers:
CCP § 2017.010 ensures a “level playing field” by providing both sides with the tools to thoroughly investigate the facts. For clients, this means their attorneys can fully explore every angle of their case, whether seeking justice for an injury or defending against an unsubstantiated claim. For lawyers, it empowers them to fulfill their duty of zealous representation, turning over every stone to gather the evidence needed to support their client’s position. Without the broad scope of discovery permitted by this statute, personal injury litigation would be far less transparent, more prone to surprise, and ultimately less fair. It is the gatekeeper to obtaining the information necessary for successful resolution, whether through settlement or trial.