This decision upholds an employer’s arbitration clause in the employment agreement of a relatively high-level employee against the employee’s argument it was unconscionable. It finds no evidence of procedural unconscionability, carefully distinguishing OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111 on its facts. Here, the employer did not rush the employee but encouaged him to seek legal advice. Also, the arbitration clause was not substantively unconscionable. Limiting the parties to 5 depositions and 30 interrrogatories was not shown to be too few, and the clause allowed the arbitrator to permit more if need was shown. Limiting discovery also promotes arbitration’s goal of efficiency. The clause also provided that arbitration was not required where the law specifically prohibits it, thus avoiding any problem of conflict with PAGA. Finally, the clause was not unconscionable in requiring the employee to pay the same fee he would pay to file a complaint in court, with the employer picking up the rest of the arbitration costs.