Where a case could proceed in either system, the differences are substantial enough to be worth analysing deliberately.
Pleading. Federal courts apply a plausibility standard; many state courts retain a more permissive notice pleading approach or, in a few, require fact pleading that is stricter still.
Discovery. Federal practice requires initial disclosures, imposes numerical limits on interrogatories and depositions, and applies an express proportionality standard. State practice varies widely and is often broader.
Expert disclosure. Federal practice requires written reports from retained experts and protects draft reports; many states use interrogatory disclosure and permit expert depositions more freely.
Summary judgment. Available in both, with federal courts widely perceived as more willing to grant it in commercial cases.
Juries. Composition, size and unanimity requirements differ, as does the geographic draw, which can matter considerably.
Pace. Federal case management is generally more active, with firm trial dates in many districts. Some state courts are faster and some considerably slower.
Appellate review. Federal appeals are of right to a circuit panel; state intermediate review varies, and discretionary review at the highest level is the norm.
Judicial selection. Elected versus appointed judiciaries, which parties consider whether or not they say so.