Thanks for your reply, flyingron.
Does California's delayed discovery rule toll the statute of limitations in criminal actions pursuant to Penal Code § 632? Based in part on your helpful post, I searched the web for hours on this question; the best answer I could find is maybe. Apparently (?), for at least some crimes in California, the statute of limitations runs from the date when the offense is discovered, not from when it is is committed. Thus, my question.
Does it make a difference that apparently (?), § 632 violations are "wobbler" offenses that may be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony? That is another unusual complication of California law as of which I have no knowledge whatsoever, other than what I read online within the past few hours.
If so, too bad! I guess that would be an issue for the parties' attorneys to wrangle over. For my part, it would just be nice if I could narrow my testimony to identification and authentication of a recording, instead of getting grilled on the stand over a conversation that the attorneys have heard in discovery, but the finder of fact has not heard.
California civil action for "eavesdropping". My apologies for the ambiguity.
Having done more web searches, I can give a sorely unqualified answer to my own question: It appears that indeed, the delayed discovery rule may apply in civil actions brought pursuant to Penal Code § 637.2. Thus, the limitation could (?) run from the first date that the plaintiff knew, or reasonably should have known about the cause of action. That looks like perhaps something that would need to be litigated on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, it looks sufficiently complicated that I doubt a good answer could be given on a web forum. I would be happy to be corrected here by someone who knows better!

