Seriously. Unless you absolutely have to serve them with process (ie: the summons), leave discovery demands out.

Lots of plaintiffs’ lawyers gasp when I say that.  They look at me like I have three heads.

• “Are you nuts?”
• “Oh, you’re a comedian now?”
• “Clearly, you’re an idiot.”

I certainly understand why they react that way. It’s common practice in many states to include discovery demands with a summons* and complaint/petition because he who demands first… demands most effectively. Under some rulebooks, omitting discovery documents from service of process puts you in an oddly defensive position at the outset.

But here’s the problem: discovery is a four-letter word outside the United States.

In civil law systems, which are in place pretty much anywhere the Union Jack didn’t once fly over (and even some where it did), demands for evidence are made by the court– not by counsel for the parties. They’re based on the Napoleonic code, very French in nature. And they’re inquisitorial systems, in which lawyers barking questions and production demands at opposing parties can be seen as a usurpation of judicial authority. As such, asking foreign authorities to serve rog’s with the summons and complaint can derail the whole thing.

But even in common law jurisdictions (eg: naturally, England and the anglophone provinces of Canada), U.S.-style discovery is frowned upon. Sending discovery demands to those jurisdictions is just not a great idea if you can help it.

Unless there’s a truly compelling reason to include the first discovery shot with process, leave it out.

* Yes, Texas, I see you there. It’s a Citation in your world, I know.