Discovery Strategy: A Simple Framework to Prioritize Requests

Discovery gets expensive and messy when every possible request looks “important.” A practical discovery strategy is less about asking for everything and more about sequencing the right requests so you prove liability, causation, and damages quickly, while staying proportional.

Below is a simple framework you can reuse in almost any civil case to prioritize discovery requests, reduce motion practice, and get to settlement leverage faster.

Start where the rules start: relevance and proportionality

In federal court (and many state systems that mirror it), discovery is bounded by relevance and proportionality. The proportionality factors in FRCP 26(b)(1) are a helpful north star even when you are not in federal court: importance of issues, amount in controversy, access to information, resources, importance of discovery to resolving issues, and whether burden outweighs benefit.

Practical translation: prioritize requests that (1) move a disputed element and (2) are hard for the other side to explain away.

A simple 5-step framework to prioritize discovery requests

Step 1: Write a one-page “proof map”

Before drafting requests, write a one-page map that answers:

• What are the 3 to 5 disputed issues that decide the case?
• For each issue, what is the best evidence you could put in front of a jury?
• What must you prove for damages (billing, future care, wage loss, mitigation, offsets)?

This keeps discovery tied to outcomes, not curiosity. It also helps you justify proportionality if you end up in a conference or motion.

Step 2: Build an evidence inventory (sources first, wording second)

For each disputed issue, list the likely sources, then pick tools.

Sources (examples): custodians, departments, claims systems, EHR platforms, safety reports, HR files, vendor portals, phone images, vehicle ECM data, social accounts.

Tools (examples):

• Requests for Production under FRCP 34
• Interrogatories under FRCP 33
• Requests for Admission under FRCP 36
• Subpoenas under FRCP 45

If you cannot tie a request to a source and a use at deposition, mediation, or trial, it is usually a lower tier.

Step 3: Score each proposed request with a “value vs friction” rubric

Use a lightweight scoring method so prioritization is consistent across your team.

Value is how much the request can change the outcome (prove an element, defeat a defense, increase damages, impeach credibility).

Friction is how hard it will be to obtain and use (burden objections, privacy fights, ESI cost, third-party delays, privilege volume, authenticity hurdles).

A simple rule that works well in practice:

• Tier 1 (first wave): Value 4-5, Friction 1-3
• Tier 2 (second wave): Value 3-5, Friction 3-4
• Tier 3 (only if needed): Value 1-3, Friction 4-5

This is how you avoid the common trap of leading with high-friction ESI requests before you have the facts to defend them.

Step 4: Draft in waves (and tell opposing counsel you are doing it)

A discovery strategy that courts and opposing counsel can understand is easier to enforce.

Wave-based drafting looks like this:

• Wave 1: core documents and admissions that frame the dispute, plus narrow custodian-based ESI if necessary.
• Wave 2: expansion requests driven by what Wave 1 reveals (additional custodians, time windows, prior incidents, comparators).
• Wave 3: “fight” discovery (forensics, broader searches, third-party subpoenas) only after you have a proportionality record.

During meet and confer, explicitly connect Wave 1 to proportionality and explain that Wave 2 will be informed by production. This often reduces reflexive objections because you are not asking for the moon on day one.

Step 5: Treat discovery like a feedback loop, not a set-and-forget packet

Your prioritization should change as facts change.

In practice, set a weekly internal review where you answer:

• What did we receive that changes our top disputed issues?
• What is missing to draft (or defeat) a dispositive motion?
• What do we need for the next two depositions?

Then adjust tiers. This prevents “discovery sprawl,” and it aligns work with the next case milestone.

High-leverage request categories (that often belong in Tier 1)

These categories tend to produce early leverage across many case types:

• Version-of-events documents: incident reports, internal emails/chats, statements, recorded calls, claim notes.
• Policies and procedures tied to the alleged conduct (training, supervision, safety, retention, escalation).
• Authenticity and foundation admissions via RFAs (ownership, authorship, business record stipulations).
• Damages backbone: billing ledgers, payment histories, write-offs, liens, wage records, disability filings (as applicable).
• Affirmative defenses: requests targeted to comparative fault, failure to mitigate, preexisting condition, statute defenses.

If you are in an ESI-heavy case, narrow early requests usually outperform broad ones: specific custodians, defined time windows, and a limited set of systems or chat platforms.

A quick example: personal injury case prioritization

Assume liability is disputed and causation is the defense theme.

• Tier 1: incident/claims file, photos/video, maintenance logs, key witness statements, medical records that show baseline and acute change, and RFAs to pin down undisputed facts.
• Tier 2: broader communications (additional custodians), prior similar incidents, training records, and targeted social or surveillance evidence if raised.
• Tier 3: forensic phone extraction, broad “any and all” ESI across multiple systems, or third-party subpoenas with long lead times.

The point is not the category, it is the sequencing: get the clean story and the medical timeline first, then expand only where it increases case value.

Where TrialBase AI fits into this workflow

Prioritization improves when your team can digest documents fast and turn them into usable litigation work product.

TrialBase AI is designed for litigation support from intake to verdict. After you upload case materials, it can help generate items like medical summaries, deposition outlines, and demand letters in minutes. In the context of discovery strategy, that can support your team by:

• Surfacing what the current record already proves (so you do not request duplicates).
• Highlighting missing records or timeline gaps that should drive your Tier 1 requests.
• Converting production into deposition-ready outlines so Wave 2 requests are tightly targeted.

As with any AI output, it should be reviewed by counsel for accuracy, privilege, and jurisdiction-specific requirements.

The takeaway

A strong discovery strategy is a prioritization system: prove the case theory early with high-value, low-friction requests, then expand only where the first wave justifies it. When your discovery is sequenced, proportionality is easier to defend, productions arrive faster, and settlement leverage shows up sooner.