An informal discovery conference is a brief, usually off-the-record meeting with a judge that resolves a dispute over document requests, interrogatories, or depositions without the cost and delay of a formal motion to compel. Research from the RAND Corporation found that these conferences reduce the likelihood of formal discovery motions by roughly 64 percent.1RAND Corporation. The Impact of Informal Discovery Conferences: Evidence from the Los Angeles Superior Courts If you’ve been told to attend one, or you’re thinking about requesting one, what matters is knowing how to get on the calendar, what to bring, and what the judge is actually going to do when the call starts.
What an Informal Discovery Conference Is
During litigation, both sides exchange documents, answer written questions, and take depositions. Disagreements are routine. One side says a request is too broad; the other says the information is essential. The traditional response is a motion to compel: written briefs, a hearing weeks or months out, often a request to shift fees. An informal discovery conference, usually called an IDC, shortcuts that cycle.
In a typical conference, the lawyers (or self-represented parties) get on the phone or appear in chambers, each side briefly explains the dispute, and the judge gives a candid, usually non-binding assessment of who has the stronger position. That assessment alone resolves most disputes, because neither side wants to spend thousands of dollars briefing a motion they’ve just been told they’ll probably lose. Where the dispute is narrower than it first appeared, the judge may suggest a compromise, such as limiting the date range of a document request or allowing a redacted production.
The word “informal” is literal. There is usually no court reporter, no sworn testimony, and no formal ruling on the docket. The judge’s comments are advisory. If the parties reach an agreement, the court may memorialize it in a short minute order, but the conference itself generates no transcript.
When an IDC Is Required and When It Isn’t
Whether you must participate in an IDC before filing a motion to compel depends on the court and the individual judge. Some federal judges issue standing orders requiring parties to request an IDC and attempt informal resolution before the judge will accept a discovery motion at all. In those courtrooms, filing a motion to compel without first going through the IDC process can get the motion denied or stricken.
Other courts treat IDCs as an available resource but not a prerequisite. Even where the conference is optional, requesting one signals good faith. If the dispute eventually requires a formal motion, having shown that you tried every informal avenue first makes your position look more reasonable.
Regardless of local practice, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 independently requires that any motion to compel include a certification that the moving party “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” with the opposing side before turning to the court. Skipping that step has a concrete cost: even if the court grants your motion, it cannot order the other side to reimburse your attorney fees if you filed before genuinely trying to work things out.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Meet and Confer First
Before you can request an IDC, you need to show that you genuinely tried to resolve the dispute directly with opposing counsel. Courts take this seriously. A single email saying “please produce the documents” followed by a court filing 48 hours later will not satisfy the requirement.
A proper meet-and-confer effort means an actual conversation, by phone or in person, where both sides discuss the specific requests at issue, explain their objections, and explore compromises. Some districts make this explicit. Certain local rules require in-person conferral when attorneys are in the same county and telephone conferral when they are not, with written correspondence alone never being enough.
Document everything. Keep a log of calls and meetings, save related emails and letters, and write a brief summary after each conversation noting what was discussed, what was agreed, and where you remain at an impasse. That record satisfies the court that you met the requirement, and it gives you a ready-made outline of the unresolved issues to include in your IDC request.
How to Request a Conference
The mechanics vary by court and judge, but the general process is straightforward. Many federal courts have a specific form for IDC requests, typically a one-page document asking for a neutral statement of the dispute, the specific relief requested, and a short summary of each side’s position. The form usually also requires the date of the meet-and-confer effort and contact information for the attorneys who will appear.
Where no standard form exists, a concise letter to the judge’s chambers typically works. Either way, the submission should include:
- The specific discovery requests at issue, identified by number so the judge can find them quickly.
- The opposing party’s objections or deficient responses, attached if the court’s form allows it.
- A short explanation of why the responses fall short, one or two sentences per request rather than a full brief.
- Certification of the meet-and-confer effort, with dates, methods of communication, and what remained unresolved.
Requests are usually submitted by email to chambers or through the court’s electronic filing system. You must promptly notify opposing counsel that you’ve submitted the request. Some courts require both sides to sign or co-submit the form, which forces one more attempt at compromise before the judge gets involved.
What Happens Between the Request and the Conference
Courts generally schedule IDCs quickly because the whole point is speed. Expect a date within one to two weeks of your request, sometimes faster for urgent disputes. The court may issue a brief scheduling notice or minute order with the date, time, and dial-in number. Most IDCs are conducted by phone. Some judges hold them on a designated day each week.
In certain courts, the judge will order both sides to submit short letter briefs before the conference, typically limited to three pages and meant to be factual rather than argumentative. They give the judge time to understand the dispute before the call begins. If the court requires pre-conference briefs, expect a deadline of 24 to 48 hours before the scheduled time.
How to Prepare for the Conference
IDCs are short. Expect 15 to 30 minutes at most, and some judges will wrap up in under 10. That time pressure changes how you prepare. There is no room for a lengthy recitation of the case background or a walk through each interrogatory one by one. The judge has likely read your submission and wants to hear the core disagreement in a few sentences.
Focus your preparation on two things: what you want and why the rules support it. The most common disputes involve relevance and proportionality under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which allows discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.3Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery Know the proportionality factors: the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to the information, each side’s resources, and whether the burden of production outweighs the likely benefit. If your dispute involves privilege, be ready to explain exactly what privilege applies and why the other side’s assertion of it is either valid or overblown.
Bring or pull up copies of the actual discovery requests and responses, the key portions of any relevant rules or local orders, and a one-page outline of your talking points. The judge may interrupt with questions, redirect the conversation, or propose a compromise you hadn’t considered. Flexibility matters more than polish. The worst move is reading from a script while the judge is trying to ask you a question.
If You Are Seeking Discovery
If you’re the party trying to compel production, your job is to show that the requests are reasonable in scope and that the other side’s objections are boilerplate or unsupported. Point to specific claims or defenses in the case that make the requested information relevant. If the opposing side objected on proportionality grounds, be ready to explain why the burden is manageable or why the information is important enough to justify the effort.
If You Are Resisting Discovery
If you’re the party objecting, avoid repeating the generic objections you already put in your written responses. The judge has seen those and was not persuaded. Explain concretely why the request is overly broad, ideally with a specific alternative scope you would accept, or why the information is genuinely privileged. Offering a reasonable compromise during the conference, such as producing documents from a narrower time period or agreeing to a protective order, almost always lands better than a flat refusal.
What Outcomes to Expect
The judge’s guidance at an IDC is typically advisory, not a formal ruling. Most attorneys treat it as a strong signal anyway. The RAND study found that when IDCs are used, the probability of a follow-up motion to compel drops from about 75 percent to roughly 16 percent.1RAND Corporation. The Impact of Informal Discovery Conferences: Evidence from the Los Angeles Superior Courts Common outcomes include:
- Immediate agreement, where the judge indicates one side has the stronger position, the other side agrees to comply, and the court enters a short minute order reflecting the deal and a deadline for production.
- Compromise, where the judge suggests narrowing the requests (such as limiting the date range or number of custodians) and both sides accept.
- Formal briefing ordered, where the dispute turns on a complex legal question such as privilege and the judge decides full briefing is needed, setting a schedule for a motion to compel.
- No resolution, which is rare; the requesting party’s next step is a formal motion to compel under Rule 37.
Because the conference is informal and usually unrecorded, there is generally no transcript. If the outcome matters for later proceedings, ask the judge to issue a minute order summarizing the resolution. Some judges do this automatically; others do not.
If Someone Ignores the Result
An IDC is low-stakes compared with a formal motion, but the underlying discovery obligations are not. If the conference ends with the judge directing a party to produce documents and that party ignores the direction, the requesting party will almost certainly file a motion to compel, and Rule 37’s cost-shifting kicks in.
When the court grants a motion to compel, it must generally order the losing side (or its attorney) to pay the winning side’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, unless the losing side’s position was substantially justified.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions The same applies in reverse: if you file a motion to compel and lose, you may be ordered to pay the other side’s costs of opposing it. For parties who defy a subsequent court order compelling discovery, the sanctions available to the court escalate significantly, up to and including treating facts as established, striking pleadings, and entering default judgment. The practical point: any commitment you make during an IDC should be treated as seriously as a court order, because one is likely to follow if you don’t comply.
Notes for Self-Represented Parties
If you’re representing yourself, an IDC is actually one of the more accessible parts of litigation. The informality works in your favor because the judge is not expecting polished legal arguments. What the judge does expect is that you understand your own case, know what documents or information you need and why, and have made a genuine effort to resolve the dispute with the other side first.
Before the conference, write down the three or four most important things you want the judge to know, in plain language. Have your discovery requests and the other side’s responses in front of you, organized so you can find the relevant ones quickly. If you’re not sure which rule supports your position, focus on explaining why the information matters to proving your case. Judges in these conferences are used to guiding the conversation and will often ask the questions that need asking.
One common mistake self-represented parties make is treating the IDC as a chance to argue the merits of the whole case. The judge is only there to resolve the discovery dispute, not to decide who wins. Stay focused on the specific documents or answers you need, and why the other side should have to provide them.