| name | discovery-summary |
| title | Discovery Document Summarization |
| description | Generates structured, citeable summaries of discovery documents (interrogatories, RFPs, RFAs, depositions, productions). Extracts admissions, inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps, and objections with precise source citations. Use when summarizing discovery responses, preparing for depositions, identifying discovery gaps, or building trial preparation materials. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/discovery-summary |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | general |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
Discovery Document Summarization
Produces a structured summary of discovery materials with precise citations for trial preparation and case strategy. Applies regardless of which side the user represents.
Prerequisites
- Discovery documents — interrogatory responses, RFP responses, RFA answers, deposition transcripts, produced documents
- Case context — claims, defenses, key issues, parties
- Citation sources — Bates ranges, response numbers, or transcript page:line references
Quick Start
- Identify discovery types present in the materials
- Produce the four-part output structure below
- Cite every factual assertion to a specific source
Output Structure
1. Executive Overview
3–5 paragraph narrative covering:
- Significant admissions or revelations
- Key documents or testimony
- Inconsistencies across responses
- Notable refusals, evasions, or privilege assertions
- Critical evidentiary gaps
2. Discovery Breakdown
Organize by discovery type or by claim/issue — whichever better serves the matter.
Per section, include a header block:
| Field | Detail |
|---|
| Discovery Type | Interrogatories / RFP / RFA / Deposition |
| Requesting Party | {name} |
| Responding Party | {name} |
| Date(s) | {response date(s)} |
Then summarize:
- Admissions — quote or paraphrase with exact citation
- Produced documents — description, Bates range, relevance (1–2 sentences)
- Objections — type and whether it blocked material disclosure
- Evasive/incomplete responses — what specifically was avoided
3. Cross-Reference Analysis
| Topic/Fact | Source A (cite) | Source B (cite) | Consistent? | Notes |
|---|
| {fact} | {cite} | {cite} | Yes/No | {discrepancy detail} |
4. Outstanding Discovery Issues
