Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818Free Case Review
-
Cities Served
-
T-Shirt Lawyer
Fighting Suits,
Not Wearing Them.Enter the universeStories, animation and community. Created by Impact Legal.
Call For A Free Consultation(602) 345-1818Free Case Review
Fighting Suits, Stories, animation and community. Created by Impact Legal.
We're Here To Help 24/7
(602) 345-1818Most people who file a car accident lawsuit expect a courtroom. What they actually get first is paperwork, questions, and a few uncomfortable afternoons answering them. That stage is called discovery, and in an Arizona car accident lawsuit it is where the value of a claim usually gets shaped. This page walks through what discovery involves, what you will personally be asked to do, and how to avoid the mistakes that cost claims money.
About this page. It was written by Jared J. Pehrson, an Arizona-licensed attorney who handles car accident cases at our Phoenix firm. It covers Arizona civil practice only. New Mexico procedure differs. It is general educational information, not advice about a specific matter, and reading it does not start an attorney-client relationship. Where a rule number or a procedural detail matters to an outcome, we say so and tell you to verify it against the current rule and your own scheduling order. Statutes and court rules get amended, and tier limits and deadlines vary case by case. Sources are listed at the bottom.
If you are still deciding whether to file at all, start with the difference between an insurance claim and a lawsuit. Discovery only happens once a lawsuit is on file.
Discovery is the formal, court-supervised exchange of information between the parties after a lawsuit is filed. The Arizona Judicial Branch publishes a general overview of how civil lawsuits move through the state’s courts (https://www.azcourts.gov/selfservicecenter/civil), and discovery is the stretch between the pleadings and trial.
In practice, discovery in an Arizona accident case runs through five categories of activity:
Most of what a jury eventually hears is developed through those five channels. Arizona’s disclosure and discovery rules exist to reduce trial-day surprises, though they do not eliminate every possibility. Courts can allow late disclosure in some circumstances, and impeachment and rebuttal evidence follow their own rules.
Here is a distinction most articles skip. Disclosure is mandatory. Discovery tools are requested.
Under Arizona civil procedure, both sides have an affirmative duty to disclose core case information early, without waiting for the other side to ask. For an injured plaintiff, that typically includes:
The defense discloses too: the driver’s account, applicable insurance coverage, their experts, and investigation material they intend to use.
Disclosure is also continuing. If you get new treatment three months into the case, that record gets disclosed. If you find a photo on an old phone, it gets disclosed. Sitting on evidence and springing it later is how evidence gets excluded.
Interrogatories are written questions you answer in writing, under oath. Expect questions about your medical history, prior accidents, prior injuries to the same body part, employment, income, and exactly what you claim the other driver did wrong. Your answers are signed and can be used against you later.
Requests for production ask for documents and things. Medical records, tax returns, pay stubs, repair invoices, cell phone records, and in some cases social media content. On the defense side, we request claim file materials, driver history, vehicle inspection records, and in commercial cases, data like ELD logbook records.
Requests for admission ask a party to admit or deny a specific fact. “Admit you entered the intersection on a red light.” Under Arizona’s civil rules, a matter admitted is conclusively established unless the court permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. That is a meaningful narrowing tool, but it is not irreversible in every case.
None of this is busywork. Written discovery is how a case gets narrowed from “there was a crash” to a short list of facts that are genuinely contested.
A deposition is live questioning under oath, usually in a conference room, with a court reporter typing every word. Often it is video recorded. The defense attorney asks the questions. Your attorney sits beside you.
What it actually feels like: slower and more repetitive than people expect. The questions start easy (name, address, work history) and then move to the crash, your treatment, your symptoms, and your daily limitations. Length varies a lot with the number of parties, the injuries claimed, and how much of the record the defense wants to walk through, so ask your attorney what to expect in your own case rather than relying on an average.
A few practical points:
The defense is not just collecting facts. They are evaluating you as a witness. Calm and consistent is worth more than dramatic.
If you put your physical condition at issue, the defense will often seek a medical examination by a doctor it retains. People call it an independent medical examination, or IME, though the examining physician is selected and paid by the defense.
This is not automatic. Under Arizona’s civil rules governing physical and mental examinations, the exam happens either by agreement between the parties or by court order after a motion showing good cause. When a court orders one, the order specifies terms such as the time, place, scope, conditions, and the person performing the exam. Those terms are negotiable, and they matter.
The exam itself is generally short. The doctor takes a history, performs a physical exam, and reviews your records, then writes a report. Defense reports frequently conclude that injuries were less severe than claimed, resolved earlier than claimed, or trace to a pre-existing condition rather than the crash.
That last point is why your own records matter so much. A pre-existing condition does not defeat a claim, but it has to be addressed honestly and early. So do gaps in treatment, which the defense reads as evidence you were not hurt.
Claims for future medical expenses are also developed in discovery. Projected future care generally has to be established through expert medical testimony rather than a client’s estimate, which means treating physicians or retained experts get disclosed, produce reports, and are deposed.
Arizona civil cases run on a court-issued scheduling order. It sets dates for disclosures, expert disclosure, the close of discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. Those dates are not suggestions. Blowing an expert disclosure deadline can mean losing the expert, which can mean losing the damages that expert was going to prove.
Arizona also assigns most civil cases to a complexity tier, and each tier carries different limits: the number of interrogatories, the number of depositions, and the length of the discovery period. That is proportionality in practice. The scope of discovery is meant to match the stakes and complexity of the case rather than run open-ended. A two-vehicle soft tissue case does not get the same discovery budget as a multi-defendant commercial trucking case. Tier assignment and the specific numeric limits can be adjusted by the court and have been revised over time, so treat your own scheduling order and the current version of the rules as controlling, not this page.
The practical effect for you: discovery requests are limited, so they get used carefully. There is no unlimited fishing.
Not every request has to be answered. Common grounds for objecting include privilege, relevance, undue burden, and requests that exceed the limits set by the rules or the scheduling order.
Attorney-client communications are privileged. Attorney work product is generally protected. Requests that have nothing to do with the crash or your injuries can be resisted as irrelevant.
What is not a valid objection: a document is embarrassing, a record is inconvenient to gather, or an answer hurts your case. If a party refuses to produce discoverable material, the other side can move to compel, and a court can order production and impose sanctions.
Your medical history is a good example. Once you put an injury at issue, records relating to that body part and that condition are generally fair game. Records for unrelated care may be a different story. That line is fact-specific and worth having an attorney draw.
This is the part I care about most.
Discovery answers are given under oath. So are depositions. And they get compared against every other statement you have made, including any recorded statement an adjuster took from you days after the crash, before you knew the extent of your injuries.
You are generally not required to give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurer. Your duties to your own insurer depend on the cooperation terms in your policy, which is a policy-by-policy question worth reviewing with an attorney before you sit for one.
Here is why that matters at the discovery stage. If you told an adjuster “I’m fine, just a little sore” and now testify to a disc injury, the defense will put those two statements side by side. The injury may be completely real and completely documented. It will still cost you credibility.
Forgetting a prior back injury causes the same damage. So does a social media post about a hiking trip you did not mention. None of those facts, standing alone, defeat a claim. Getting caught concealing them can.
The rule is simple. Tell the truth, tell all of it, and let your attorney handle the context.
Discovery is where fault percentages get built. Arizona’s comparative negligence statute, A.R.S. § 12-2505 (https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02505.htm), provides that a claimant’s damages are reduced in proportion to that claimant’s relative degree of fault. The statute also contains an exception: there is no right to comparative negligence in favor of a claimant who intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death. Under that statute, contributory negligence and assumption of risk questions go to the jury, and the reduction applies if the jury applies the defense.
That means the defense spends discovery looking for your percentage. Speed, attention, following distance, seat belt use, whether you could have avoided the collision. Your side spends discovery on theirs: phone records, event data recorder downloads, scene measurements, and accident reconstruction evidence where the physics are contested. At trial, the jury assigns fault percentages among the parties, and Arizona law also allows fault to be allocated to non-parties who were properly identified, sometimes called the empty chair.
Arizona also generally applies several liability, meaning a defendant pays its own allocated share rather than the entire judgment, subject to statutory exceptions. Those exceptions should be verified against the current text of A.R.S. § 12-2506, including subsection D, because they change the outcome in certain cases. I am describing the general structure here, not confirming how it applies to any particular crash. That structure makes non-party fault allocation a live issue in multi-vehicle cases, and it is developed almost entirely through discovery. For the underlying framework, see how fault percentages are assigned in Arizona.
Discovery can also surface how the insurer handled the claim. Arizona recognizes a first-party bad faith tort against an insurer, but the burden is higher than ordinary negligence, and it is not a “reasonable care” test. As a general matter, the Arizona case law in the Rawlings and Zilisch line requires two separate showings: first, that the insurer acted objectively unreasonably in investigating, evaluating, or processing the claim, and second, that the insurer knew its conduct was unreasonable or acted with conscious disregard of that fact. A careless or mistaken claim decision, standing alone, is generally not enough. Whether that standard is met in any given file is highly fact-dependent. I am summarizing the general framework from memory of the case law rather than quoting an opinion, so the current governing decisions and the actual claim file both need attorney review before anyone draws a conclusion about a bad faith claim.
Discovery happens after filing. The filing deadline is separate, and it does not pause while you gather evidence.
Arizona generally requires personal injury actions to be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues under A.R.S. § 12-542 (https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00542.htm). Arizona case law applies a discovery rule to accrual, meaning the clock can start when the injury was or reasonably should have been discovered, which sometimes matters for latent injuries. Tolling, the identity of the parties, and special notice requirements can all change the analysis, and that analysis is not something to run off a webpage.
Claims involving Arizona public entities or public employees are on a different track entirely. Those claims generally require a notice of claim served within 180 days after the cause of action accrues under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, and separately require the lawsuit itself to be filed within one year after accrual under A.R.S. § 12-821. That is a shorter filing window than the general two-year rule, not just an added paperwork step. We cover the details in Arizona’s notice of claim rules.
The practical takeaway: never wait for discovery to tell you whether to file. You file first, then discover. If you are anywhere near a deadline, get the analysis done now, not after.
Ready to move forward? See how to file an auto accident claim in Arizona or browse our Phoenix personal injury resources.
It depends on the complexity tier the court assigns and the scheduling order it issues. Simpler two-vehicle cases move faster than multi-defendant or commercial vehicle cases with several experts. Your attorney can give you a realistic window once the scheduling order is in place. Anyone quoting you a fixed timeline before that order exists is guessing.
If you filed the lawsuit and your deposition is properly noticed, generally yes. It is a standard part of discovery. Your attorney prepares you beforehand and attends with you.
Not automatically. Once you claim a specific injury, records related to that condition are generally discoverable. Unrelated medical history is a different question and is often worth objecting to. That line gets negotiated between counsel or decided by the court.
No. Under Arizona’s civil rules, a physical or mental examination happens by agreement of the parties or by court order after a motion showing good cause, and the order sets the time, place, scope, conditions, and examiner. Those terms can be negotiated.
Not by itself. A first-party bad faith claim in Arizona generally requires proof that the insurer’s handling of the claim was objectively unreasonable and that the insurer knew it was unreasonable or consciously disregarded that fact. A low valuation or a disputed coverage position is not automatically bad faith. That question needs a review of the claim file and the current case law.
Discovery obligations are continuing. If you realize an answer was incomplete, tell your attorney immediately so the response can be supplemented. Correcting it yourself is far better than having the defense find it.
Your attorney can object, and in limited situations such as privileged communications can instruct you not to answer. Most objections are made for the record and you still answer. Refusing without a valid basis can lead to a motion to compel.
Descriptions of disclosure duties, deposition practice, examinations, tier-based discovery limits, and objections in this article reflect general Arizona civil practice and our own experience handling these cases. They are not quotations from the rules.
The description of Arizona’s first-party insurance bad faith standard is a general summary of the Arizona case law commonly associated with the Rawlings and Zilisch decisions. No opinion text is quoted or cited here, and the elements as applied by current Arizona courts should be confirmed against the decisions themselves before anyone relies on that summary.
Rule numbers, tier limits, deadlines, and case law all change, so confirm the current text and your own court’s scheduling order before relying on any of it.
Discovery rewards preparation and punishes guesswork. If you are heading into the lawsuit stage of an Arizona car accident case, or you are still deciding whether filing makes sense, we are happy to walk through the specifics with you. Case facts, policy language, and deadlines all change the answer, so general information is no substitute for a review of your situation.
Get a clear answer about your case: (602) 345-1818. Free case review, and no attorney’s fees unless we recover, with fee and cost terms set out in a written agreement.
By Jared J. Pehrson | Impact Legal Car Accident Attorneys
A free conversation can help you understand your next step.