Discovery in Litigation: What to Expect and When

Discovery is where most civil cases are won or lost long before anyone stands in front of a jury. It is also where cases get expensive, deadlines get missed, and leverage shifts fast. If you know what discovery is designed to accomplish, what the major phases look like, and when key events usually happen, you can plan staffing, control costs, and keep momentum toward settlement or trial.

This guide walks through what to expect in discovery in litigation and when, using a practical, calendar-driven lens. (This is general information, not legal advice. Always confirm rules and deadlines under the governing court rules and your scheduling order.)

What “discovery” means in litigation (in plain terms)

Discovery is the formal process where parties exchange information relevant to the claims and defenses. In U.S. civil litigation, the boundaries are usually set by the applicable procedural rules (often the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in federal court) and then narrowed further by:

• The pleadings (what is actually at issue)
• The court’s scheduling order
• Proportionality considerations (how much is reasonable given the case)
• Privilege and protection doctrines (attorney client, work product, privacy statutes, protective orders)

If you are in federal court, the key scope language is in Rule 26(b)(1): discovery must be relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

Discovery timeline at a glance (typical phases)

Discovery timing varies by jurisdiction, judge, and case type, but most cases follow a recognizable arc. The table below shows a common sequence you will see in federal court and many state courts, with some variability.

Your actual “when” is driven by the court’s scheduling order, not habit. The schedule is the case’s operating system.

The “day one” reality: preservation, holds, and early case assessment

Before the first interrogatory is served, discovery obligations may already exist. Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties often have duties to preserve relevant evidence, especially electronically stored information (ESI).

In federal court, Rule 37(e) governs certain consequences for failure to preserve ESI. The practical takeaway is not “save everything,” but rather “preserve intelligently and defensibly.”

Early tasks that reduce later motion practice:

• Identify key custodians, systems, and third-party sources (email, shared drives, texting platforms, EMR portals, claim systems)
• Document your preservation steps (who, when, what systems)
• Build an early issue map so discovery requests are tied to proof, not curiosity

For plaintiff-side personal injury or medical cases, early case assessment often centers on medical chronology and damages drivers. For commercial matters, it often centers on contract documents, performance history, and internal communications.

The Rule 26(f) meet and confer (and why it matters more than it looks)

In federal cases, the Rule 26(f) conference is where discovery becomes real. Even in jurisdictions that do not use Rule 26(f) specifically, courts often require a similar conference.

This is where parties should address:

• The subjects on which discovery may be needed
• When initial disclosures will be made
• A proposed discovery plan and schedule
• ESI topics (sources, form of production, search methodology, privilege handling)
• Protective orders (confidentiality designations, HIPAA or other privacy protections)

If you walk into the meet and confer without a plan for ESI, you are volunteering for months of friction. A small amount of preparation here can eliminate repeat disputes later.

Initial disclosures: what to expect and what to watch for

Initial disclosures (where required) are meant to exchange baseline information early. In practice, they can be incomplete, vague, or strategically narrow.

Common issues to anticipate:

• “We will produce documents later” without identifying categories in a usable way
• Witness lists that omit obvious fact witnesses
• Damages computations that are placeholders, then change materially later

Treat initial disclosures like a starting dataset. Calendar supplementation checkpoints and make sure your own disclosures match the story you will ultimately prove.

Written discovery tools and when they typically land

Most litigators think of discovery as “written discovery” plus depositions. Written discovery usually arrives in waves, and the first wave often sets the tone for the whole case.

Interrogatories (what happened, who knows, and how you claim it)

Interrogatories push the other side to commit to positions, identify witnesses, and explain contentions. They are especially useful for:

• Locking in the theory of the case
• Identifying decision makers and custodians
• Finding the “hidden” policies, procedures, and systems

When to expect them: often early, sometimes alongside the first requests for production.

Requests for production (the documents that decide the case)

Requests for production (RFPs) are where the proof usually lives. Strong RFPs are:

• Element-driven (tied to claims and defenses)
• Time-bounded and custodian-aware
• Structured to support depositions and summary judgment

When to expect them: early to mid discovery, with rolling productions thereafter.

Requests for admission (pin down what should not be disputed)

Requests for admission (RFAs) can narrow issues and set up summary judgment. They work well for:

• Authenticating documents
• Admitting undisputed timeline facts
• Eliminating “we don’t know” games late in the case

When to expect them: often mid to late discovery, when you have enough documents to ask precise questions.

Subpoenas (third-party proof)

Third-party subpoenas often supply objective records (medical, employment, banking, phone, surveillance, vendor logs). The earlier you identify third-party targets, the better, because:

• Vendors have their own timelines
• Objections and motions can add weeks
• Some data sources have short retention windows

When to expect them: as early as possible once relevance is clear, and before deposition scheduling if those records will be key exhibits.

Document production: what it looks like in real cases

Document production rarely arrives as a single clean package. Expect:

• Rolling productions (especially in ESI-heavy cases)
• Format disputes (TIFF vs native, metadata fields, load files)
• Privilege log negotiations
• “We’ll search again” follow-ups after depositions expose gaps

To keep control, track production like a project.

For ESI-heavy cases, many teams rely on principles from the Sedona Conference, which publishes widely used guidance on e-discovery best practices (see the Sedona Conference publications).

Depositions: when they happen and how to prepare effectively

Depositions are where paper turns into testimony. Timing strategy matters.

The usual sequencing logic

• Early depositions (sometimes) if a witness is at risk of disappearing or if limited testimony is needed for injunctive relief
• Core fact witness depositions after enough documents are produced to confront witnesses with specifics
• 30(b)(6) depositions after you have enough information to name topics precisely, but early enough to force system-level answers
• Expert depositions after expert reports and after the key fact record is in place

What to expect operationally

Depositions create a surge of work:

• Exhibit selection, clipping, and labeling
• Outline building and admissions tracking
• Real-time issue spotting for follow-up discovery

Firms that struggle in depositions often do not have a single “source of truth” for the case record. Important facts live across email threads, PDFs, medical records, and transcripts, without a unified workflow.

Expert discovery: the “late-stage” discovery that must be planned early

Even though expert discovery often comes later, it should shape earlier requests. If you wait until expert time to collect the data your expert needs, you risk:

• Incomplete datasets
• Rushed supplemental productions
• Avoidable Daubert or admissibility fights

In federal practice, expert disclosure and report obligations are governed by Rule 26(a)(2). Confirm local rules, standing orders, and the specific scheduling order, because judges vary widely.

Common discovery bottlenecks (and how they typically show up)

Discovery problems tend to repeat across cases. The only surprise is how early they appear.

Scope and proportionality disputes

One side calls it a fishing expedition, the other calls it necessary. Courts often expect a proportionality conversation grounded in specifics: what the issue is, what the likely burden is, and what alternative sources exist.

Privilege log fights

Privilege is real, but privilege can also be abused. If logs are late, vague, or inconsistent, disputes can consume weeks.

Confidentiality and protective orders

If you expect sensitive business records, health records, or trade secrets, address confidentiality early so production is not held hostage.

Discovery that does not map to proof

The most expensive discovery is discovery that does not move an element. When requests are not tied to case themes, you get volume instead of value.

How to keep discovery on schedule (without burning out your team)

Discovery schedules slip for predictable reasons: unclear ownership, inconsistent intake, and failure to convert documents into work product as they arrive.

A durable approach usually includes:

• A discovery calendar with internal deadlines (not just court deadlines)
• A dispute log that tracks meet and confer dates, issues, and proposed compromises
• A living case chronology that is updated as new documents arrive
• A standardized system for summarizing key records (medical, employment, financial, engineering, project files)

One practical shift is to stop treating “review” and “drafting” as separate phases. The best teams turn discovery materials into litigation-ready outputs continuously.

Where AI can help in discovery (and where it should not)

AI is increasingly used to accelerate document understanding and drafting, but discovery is not a place for guesswork. The right use cases are the ones where AI helps you:

• Extract and organize facts faster
• Draft first-pass materials you will verify and edit
• Standardize outputs across a team

For example, TrialBase AI is positioned as an intelligent litigation support platform that turns uploaded case documents into case-ready outputs such as demand letters, medical summaries, deposition outlines, and trial materials, with a unified workflow and team collaboration features. Used responsibly, tools like this can reduce the lag between receiving a production and being ready to take the next deposition or write the next persuasive letter.

A practical workflow many firms aim for:

• Ingest productions and key records as they arrive
• Generate a first-pass medical summary or record summary for attorney review
• Build deposition outlines that cite to specific documents and chronology points
• Convert verified facts into settlement-focused materials (like a demand package) when the record supports it

The key is process discipline: AI output should be treated as attorney work product that requires review, not as a final authority.

What clients should expect during discovery (and how to set expectations)

If your audience includes clients, discovery can feel intrusive and slow. Setting expectations early reduces friction later:

• Discovery often involves producing personal or business records, sometimes over a multi-year period
• Depositions are normal and heavily prepared for, they are not a sign the case is going badly
• Timelines are driven by court schedules, objections, and third-party response times

When clients understand the “why” behind discovery tasks, they are more responsive, and responsiveness often correlates with better outcomes.

Bringing it together: a simple “when” checklist you can actually use

Instead of memorizing every rule, anchor discovery management to timing triggers:

• Immediately: preserve evidence, identify key custodians, collect core records
• Before the first conference: outline your ESI plan, confidentiality needs, and phased discovery priorities
• Early discovery: serve targeted written discovery aligned to elements, push for usable production formats
• As productions arrive: summarize, tag issues, and draft deposition materials continuously
• Before key depositions: validate completeness of production, identify gaps, serve follow-ups if needed
• Late discovery: use RFAs to narrow issues, finish expert needs, and lock in admissible proof

If you want to reduce surprises, the most effective habit is simple: treat discovery as an ongoing conversion of raw records into a trial-ready narrative, not a box-checking exchange of PDFs.

For teams looking to compress timelines, tools that support AI-driven document analysis and rapid drafting (like TrialBase AI) can help you move from intake through discovery and into deposition and settlement materials faster, as long as you keep attorney review and case strategy at the center of every output.