What Attorneys Should Be Looking For in the First 30 Days of a Case

In many premises and operational cases, the trajectory isn’t shaped at deposition or trial. It’s shaped in the first 30 days.

I’m increasingly seeing two things happen early on:

1. Retailers responding narrowly — sometimes evasively — in discovery.

2. Attorneys asking for documents generally, but not always specifically enough.

When that combination occurs, key operational facts can stay buried for months.

From an operational standpoint, the first 30 days should focus on clarity — not assumptions.

1. Who actually controlled the condition?Was it store-level staff? A third-party contractor? A facilities vendor? Control is often implied in pleadings but requires specific documentation to confirm.

2. What policies governed the activity — and where are they stored?It’s not enough to request “all safety policies.” Attorneys should be asking for inspection protocols, vendor contracts, training modules, revision histories, and any digital systems used to track compliance.

3. What systems generate data?Digital inspection logs, mobile task apps, maintenance platforms, and surveillance retention settings often exist — but unless requested specifically, they may not be produced.

4. Who made operational decisions that day?Shift supervisors, assistant managers, third-party crews — identifying the decision-makers early changes how depositions and discovery are structured.

5. Is there a pattern?Prior incidents, internal reporting trends, recurring vendor performance issues — these often require targeted discovery requests. Broad requests may not surface them.

The first 30 days are less about proving liability and more about understanding how the operation actually functions. When discovery is precise and operationally informed, evasiveness becomes harder and the case develops on a clearer path.

When it isn’t, everyone spends months untangling what should have been identified at the outset.