The "discovery rule" applies to interference claims. See, e.g., Norgart, 21 Cal. 4th at 397-98 (discovery rule generally); April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV, 147 Cal. App. 3d 805, 831-32 (1983); Goldstein v. Kirby, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5789, *26 (holding that discovery rule may apply to interference with contract claims); Griffin v. Aerosat USA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118610, *12-13 (D. Az. 2010) (holding that interference with contract claim accrues upon discovery of breach, under Arizona law). In this case, the earliest date that the statute of limitations began to run on the Interference Claim against the Hudson Defendants was August 27, 2015, the date of Raymond's deposition and the date Plaintiff first discovered that the Hudson Defendants had engaged in sham transactions and fraudulent transfers relating to the fraudulent distribution from the CAR to Hudson.