For decades, California distinguished itself from federal practice by not requiring automatic initial disclosures. Litigators here grew up on requests for production, interrogatories, and the motion practice that inevitably follows. That was the rhythm, and most practitioners never questioned it.
Then the legislature enacted California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.090, which allows a party to demand early, structured disclosures from its opponent—similar in concept to what federal litigators have used under Rule 26(a)(1) for years. The statute has the potential to reshape how California cases unfold in the early months. And yet, in our experience, it remains significantly underutilized.
What the Statute Actually Does
Section 2016.090 allows any party, by written demand, to require the opposing side to provide initial disclosures covering the identity of individuals likely to have discoverable information, documents and electronically stored information supporting claims or defenses, computation of damages, and applicable insurance agreements. The disclosures are made on a fixed timeline, early in the case, without the need for formal discovery requests. Once a demand is served, the obligation is mandatory and continuing.
In other words, it front-loads the kind of information that traditionally takes months of back-and-forth discovery to extract.
Why Most Litigators Are Not Using It
There are a few reasons, and none of them are particularly good.
Habit is the biggest one. California litigators have been doing discovery the same way for a long time. The instinct is to serve a set of requests for production and interrogatories within the first few weeks, then spend the next several months fighting about the responses. Section 2016.090 does not fit neatly into that muscle memory, so it gets overlooked.
Some practitioners underestimate it. The thinking goes: why demand generic disclosures when I can serve tailored discovery requests that target exactly what I need? That logic is not wrong on its face, but it misses the point. Initial disclosures are not a substitute for targeted discovery. They are a complement—a way to get the lay of the land before you start drilling.
The statute is still relatively new, and case law is thin. That uncertainty has made some lawyers cautious. But waiting for a body of appellate decisions to develop before using a plainly available tool is, in our view, leaving an advantage on the table.
Why We Think You Should Be Using It
It forces early transparency
Traditional discovery unfolds slowly and unevenly. One side serves requests; the other side objects, produces a fraction of what was asked for, and the parties spend weeks negotiating over the rest. Initial disclosures compress that timeline. Within a short period, you get a roadmap of key witnesses, the universe of core documents, and the opposing party’s damages theory. That information is often not meaningfully available until much later through conventional discovery.
It narrows the case earlier
Early disclosures sharpen the issues. Weak claims or defenses become apparent sooner. The scope of relevant discovery comes into focus. Motion strategy—including whether early dispositive motions are realistic—can be evaluated months earlier than it otherwise would be. In complex commercial disputes, where the volume of documents and witnesses can be enormous, this kind of early clarity is genuinely valuable.
It reduces gamesmanship
Because disclosures are mandatory and continuing, they limit the ability to withhold key documents until late in discovery, spring new theories on the opposing party at the eleventh hour, or dribble out information in response to piecemeal requests. No discovery regime eliminates gamesmanship entirely. But Section 2016.090 raises the cost of playing those games.
It positions the case for earlier resolution
When both sides understand the evidentiary landscape early, settlement discussions become more productive. Mediation is more meaningful. Case valuation is grounded in actual evidence rather than speculation. We have seen cases where early disclosures moved the parties toward resolution months ahead of where they would have been under a traditional discovery track.
When It Works Best
Initial disclosures are particularly effective in commercial disputes where key documents are concentrated and identifiable, in cases involving fraud or misrepresentation where early access to communications and witnesses is critical, and in matters with asymmetric information—where one party controls most of the relevant evidence and the other side needs a mechanism to level the playing field early.
They may be less useful in cases where the facts are already well known to both sides, or where discovery is likely to be highly technical or expert-driven from the outset. But even in those situations, the cost of making the demand is low and the potential upside is real.
A Few Practical Notes
Timing matters. The statute allows a demand early in the case. Serving it promptly maximizes its value—waiting until discovery is already underway defeats the purpose.
Be prepared to reciprocate. The obligation is mutual. Before making a demand, make sure your own disclosures are defensible. There is nothing worse than demanding transparency you are not prepared to provide.
Use it to complement, not replace, targeted discovery. Initial disclosures give you the broad picture. Requests for production, interrogatories, and depositions fill in the details. The two work together.
The Bottom Line
Section 2016.090 is not a marginal procedural tool. It can reshape the early trajectory of a case—forcing transparency, narrowing disputes, and improving efficiency. The fact that it remains underutilized is not a reflection of its utility. It is a reflection of habit. For practitioners willing to break that habit, the statute offers a straightforward advantage: more information, earlier in the case, with less friction.
At Tajima LLP, we look for every procedural and strategic edge available to our clients. Section 2016.090 is one of them.
If you have questions about litigation strategy in California state or federal court, please contact Jackie Levien or Chase Tajima to discuss your case.