Most people think of “discovery” as paperwork: interrogatories, document requests, depositions, motions to compel. In reality, discovery is not about volume. It is about purpose.

Handled correctly, pretrial discovery is the phase of litigation where cases are actually won or lost. Handled poorly, it becomes an expensive, time-consuming exercise that generates paper but produces little insight and even less leverage.

The difference is not the rules. The difference is the lawyer.

DISCOVERY IS A STRATEGY, NOT A CHECKLIST

Many lawyers approach discovery mechanically. They send the same standard interrogatories they have used for years. They ask broad, unfocused questions. They wait to see what comes back. Then they react.

That approach mistakes activity for progress.

Effective discovery starts with a clear theory of the case: what matters, what does not, and what facts must ultimately be proven or disproven. Every discovery request should serve a specific objective—either to learn something concrete or to establish something that will matter later, often at summary judgment.

Discovery should narrow the case, not bloat it.

WHY INTERROGATORIES ARE OFTEN A DEAD END

Interrogatories have their place, but they are frequently overused and misunderstood.

So-called “contention interrogatories”—questions asking the opposing party to explain all facts supporting their claims—rarely produce meaningful answers. They are routinely objected to, carefully lawyer-crafted, and stripped of real substance. What you often end up with is not the opponent’s position, but their lawyer’s rhetoric.

Interrogatories are most effective for targeted purposes: identifying witnesses, locating documents, or confirming basic background facts. Beyond that, they are often an inefficient way to get to the truth.

If the goal is to understand what actually happened—or to lock the other side into positions that matter—there are better tools.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND DOCUMENTS: WHERE CASES TAKE SHAPE

Requests for admission and focused requests for production are far more powerful when used intentionally.

Admissions can eliminate issues entirely. They can establish undisputed facts. They can force the opposing party to commit to positions that later cannot be walked back. Well-drafted admissions simplify cases and expose weak theories early.

Document requests, when narrowly tailored, often tell the real story. Contracts, emails, text messages, account records, internal reports—these are not filtered through advocacy in the same way interrogatory answers are. They show how decisions were actually made, not how lawyers wish they had been made.

When documents and admissions are obtained first, depositions become exponentially more effective.

THE DEPOSITION IS WHERE PREPARATION SHOWS

A deposition should never be a fishing expedition. It should be the execution of a plan.

A well-prepared lawyer enters a deposition knowing exactly what needs to be learned, what needs to be confirmed, and what needs to be established for later motions or trial. The questions are sequenced. The documents are chosen deliberately. Silence is used strategically. Admissions are built, piece by piece.

By contrast, a lawyer who “just goes through the motions” in a deposition may ask dozens of questions and learn very little. Time is wasted. Opportunities are missed. Inconsistencies go unexplored. Critical testimony is never locked down.

Depositions are not about how long they last. They are about what they accomplish.

DISCOVERY SHOULD SET UP THE ENDGAME

Discovery is not an isolated phase of litigation. It should be designed with the end in mind.

In many cases, the real objective is not trial at all, but a decisive summary judgment motion—or, at minimum, the leverage that comes from being able to file one credibly. That requires evidence, admissions, and testimony that align with the governing legal standards.

A focused discovery strategy builds that record intentionally. An unfocused one hopes something useful appears by accident.

WHY LAWYERS ARE NOT FUNGIBLE

Clients are often told that “a lawyer is a lawyer.” In discovery, that is demonstrably false.

Two lawyers can operate under the same procedural rules and produce dramatically different outcomes. Judgment, preparation, strategic restraint, and experience matter. Knowing what not to ask is often just as important as knowing what to ask.

Discovery rewards lawyers who think several steps ahead—and punishes those who treat it as a formality.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Pretrial discovery is where serious cases are shaped. It is where weak claims are exposed, strong defenses are reinforced, and leverage is created.

Clients who want results—not just activity—should care deeply about how discovery is approached. The difference between a focused, intentional strategy and a rote, check-the-box process is often the difference between winning early and fighting uphill for years.

If you are involved in high-stakes litigation, this is not an area where shortcuts or generic approaches serve you well.