interrogatory-response-summaries

name	interrogatory-response-summaries
title	Interrogatory Response Summaries
description	Generates structured summaries of interrogatory responses in commercial litigation, extracting key facts, objections, evasions, patterns, and inconsistencies per interrogatory. Use when analyzing opposing party interrogatory answers, spotting discovery gaps, or preparing for depositions.
author	CaseMark
author_url	https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/interrogatory-response-summaries
license	Apache-2.0
version	0.1.0
execution_mode	open
jurisdiction	us
practice	litigation
language	en
tags	["analysis","summarization","summary"]

Interrogatory Response Summaries

Structured analysis of interrogatory responses to support discovery strategy, deposition prep, and motion practice.

Required Inputs

1. Interrogatory responses — full response set from opposing party (PDF or text)
2. Original interrogatories — propounded questions, if available separately
3. Supplemental context (optional) — prior discovery, prior statements, or relevant court orders

Workflow

Step 1: Per-Interrogatory Summary Table

For each interrogatory, produce a row:

#	Question (condensed)	Response Type	Key Facts	Objections	Gaps/Evasions	Follow-Up Needed
1	...	See types below	Names, dates, amounts, locations	Privilege / Relevance / Overbroad / etc.	Deflections, non-answers	Yes/No + note

Response types:

• Substantive — direct factual answer
• Mixed — objection + partial answer (summarize each independently; do not merge)
• Referral — directed to document production (note Bates range if available)
• No knowledge — responding party disclaims knowledge
• Objection only — no substantive answer provided

Step 2: Pattern Analysis

Identify recurring patterns across all responses:

• Repeated objections — same basis across multiple interrogatories (e.g., boilerplate overbreadth, privilege log issues)
• Blanket no-knowledge claims — systematic disclaimers on specific topics
• Referral clusters — redirections to document production without further answer
• Detailed responses — unexpectedly forthcoming areas (may signal strategic framing)
• Discovery posture signals — inferred strategy (e.g., stonewalling on damages, cooperative on liability)

Step 3: Inconsistency and Risk Flags

Interrogatory #	Issue	Conflicting Source	Significance
...	Response conflicts with...