ORDER

(Docket No. 32)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion for a protective order related to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition noticed for February 12, 2016. Docket No. 32. The Court denied the previously-filed motion because it incorrectly relied on a state law standard for relevancy, the primary issue advanced by Defendant. See Docket No. 31. Defendant's renewed motion cites federal law, but relies on the standard for relevancy for purposes of admitting evidence at trial. See Docket No. 32 at 4 (discussing Federal Rule of Evidence 401). That is not the standard applicable in the discovery context. See, e.g., Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 196 (9th Cir. 1975) ("the question of relevancy is to be more loosely construed at the discovery stage than at the trial" and "it is no ground for objection that the information sought in pretrial discovery would not be admissible at trial"); 8 Wright, Miller, & Marcus, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 2008, at p. 125-126 (2010) (distinguishing between the relevancy standard in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the relevancy standard for admission of evidence at trial governed by the Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) ("Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable").

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlines the scope of allowable discovery, and limits parties to seeking "relevant" information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).1 Case law applying Rule 26 emphasizes that "relevancy under Rule 26 is extremely broad, "U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Enter., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428, 431 (D. Nev. 2006), and "contemplates discovery into any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be raised in a case," Phoenix Solutions Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 254 F.R.D. 568, 575 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (emphasis added). "Relevant information for purposes of discovery is information `reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.'" Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)).

As noted above, the renewed motion relies on an improper standard for relevancy.2 Moreover, it appears that the improper recitation of the applicable standard may have impacted the arguments made, which do not appear consistent with the above standard. Compare Phoenix Solutions, 254 F.R.D. at 575 (relevant discovery includes information bearing on "any issue" in the case) with Docket No. 32 at 4 (arguing that a deposition topic is improper because it is not pertinent "to the core issue in this case"). As such, the renewed motion for protective order is hereby DENIED without prejudice. To the extent Defendant believes its relevancy objection remains valid, it shall promptly meet-and-confer with Plaintiff's counsel. Any refiled motion must be filed no later than January 29, 2016, and must address the standards outlined above.3

In the event the motion for protective order is renewed, any response must be filed no later than February 3, 2016, and any reply must be filed no later than February 4, 2016.4 The Court hereby SETS a hearing on any renewed motion for 2:00 p.m. on February 9, 2016, in Courtroom 3D.

IT IS SO ORDERED.