Following Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, this decision holds that the trial court erred in denying an employer’s motion to compel arbitration. Though the arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable as it was part of a pre-employment adhesion contract, it was not substantively unconscionable. The clause did not improperly limit discovery. It incorporated JAMS arbitration rules which even in their 2014 version (applicable at the time the arbitration clause was signed) allowed the arbitrator to allow discovery beyond the one deposition of each party as of right provision of the JAMS rules. The fact that the arbitrator might not be able to compel discovery from a person who was not a party to the arbitration was not sufficient to make the arbitration agreement unconscionable since, at the time of signing the arbitration agreement, it was speculative whether any non-party would refuse to provide discovery allowed by the arbitrator. The decision disapproves Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360 to the extent it narrowly interpreted the scope of an arbitrator’s authority to allow discovery from non-parties.