The California legislature’s efforts to streamline the discovery process, promote transparency and fairness in civil proceedings, and reduce discovery abuse began in 2019, when California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 2016.090 was amended to provide for initial disclosures, but only if the parties stipulated to such an exchange. Unsurprisingly, the rule change had little impact, as very few parties agreed to make the exchange. In 2023, legislation was passed to make the exchange potentially involuntary—now every party to the action must make initial disclosures so long as any other party demands them. 

The forum defendant rule normally bars removing a state case to federal court when there is a forum defendant, even if the parties are otherwise diverse. A rarely-used method is the exception to this rule. Using a procedure called snap removal, defendants can avoid the forum defendant rule by removing before the forum defendant is served.  

On July 9, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) commenced enforcement of its new Data Security Program (“DSP”) to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive U.S. data. Created earlier this year, the program seeks to prevent China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela (collectively, the “Countries of Concern”), as well as foreign entities or individuals with significant ties to these nations, from gaining access to U.S. government-related data and certain categories of U.S. sensitive personal data. Importantly, the rules apply “regardless of whether the data is anonymized, pseudonymized, de-identified or encrypted.” According to the DOJ, the threat of foreign adversaries collecting and weaponizing U.S. data had become “increasingly urgent, and ensuring prompt compliance with the DSP’s requirements is critical to addressing the administration’s priorities and stopping the flow of U.S. sensitive personal data and government-related data to countries of concern.” The seriousness of any infraction is reflected in the program’s steep civil and criminal penalties. Violators of the DSP could be subject to fines up to $368,136 per violation, or twice the value of each transaction in violation, whichever is greater. Willful violators could face imprisonment of up to 20 years and a $1 million fine.

The skies are darkening over the “walled garden” of Apple’s operating system. A Northern District of California court cleared the way for antitrust claims against Apple over its iCloud storage service on mobile devices. The court’s decision to deny Apple’s motion to dismiss in Gamboa v. Apple is a wake-up call for tech companies: courts are ready and willing to scrutinize platform-based restrictions, especially when those barriers are baked into product design. Judge Eumi Lee’s ruling also shows how a change in legal strategy can make all the difference for plaintiffs – or defendants – when charting a course through the early stages of antitrust litigation.