Drafts filing-ready motions to compel discovery in civil litigation with deficiency matrix, declaration, memorandum, and proposed order. Covers interrogatories, RFPs, RFAs, depositions, and ESI disputes under federal FRCP and state analogs. Includes Rule 37(a)(5) sanctions strategy and meet-and-confer certification. Use when drafting a motion to compel, addressing boilerplate objections, seeking discovery sanctions, or preparing discovery dispute briefing.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Drafts filing-ready motions to compel discovery in civil litigation with deficiency matrix, declaration, memorandum, and proposed order. Covers interrogatories, RFPs, RFAs, depositions, and ESI disputes under federal FRCP and state analogs. Includes Rule 37(a)(5) sanctions strategy and meet-and-confer certification. Use when drafting a motion to compel, addressing boilerplate objections, seeking discovery sanctions, or preparing discovery dispute briefing.
Draft a filing-ready motion to compel with deficiency matrix, good-faith declaration, memorandum, and proposed order. Defaults to federal FRCP; swap to state analogs when state court specified.
Prerequisites
Court + jurisdiction — federal district or state/county; local rule requirements (separate statement, page limits, pre-motion conference, joint letter)
Default posture: opposing party served boilerplate objections and/or incomplete answers; one written meet-and-confer plus live conference attempted; relief = complete verified responses within 14 days + fees under FRCP 37(a)(5).
Phase 1: Rule Mapping & Deadlines
Motion type selector
Issue
Federal Authority
Traps
No responses to interrogatories/RFPs
FRCP 33(b), 34(b), 37(a)
Some courts require first moving to deem objections waived
Boilerplate objections / incomplete answers
FRCP 26(b)(1), 33, 34, 37(a)
Must address proportionality
Privilege without adequate log
FRCP 26(b)(5) + local rule
Courts often require conferral + proposed log format
RFAs improperly denied
FRCP 36(a)(6)
Different standard from Rule 37(a)
Deposition nonappearance
FRCP 30, 37(a)(3)(B), 37(d)
37(d) (no prior order needed) vs. 37(a) (refusal to answer)
ESI format dispute
FRCP 34(b)(1)(C), 34(b)(2)(E)
Specify custodians, date ranges, search terms, metadata, native vs. TIFF
Rule reference
Topic
Rule
Scope / Proportionality
FRCP 26(b)(1)
Interrogatories
FRCP 33
Requests for Production
FRCP 34
Requests for Admission
FRCP 36
Motion to Compel
FRCP 37(a)
Expenses on Motion
FRCP 37(a)(5)
Failure to Attend / Serve
FRCP 37(d)
Privilege Log
FRCP 26(b)(5)
ESI Format
FRCP 34(b)(1)(C), 34(b)(2)(E)
Deadline checklist
Response due dates per discovery set (including extensions)
Local rules: pre-motion conference/IDC, joint statement, separate statement, page limits, e-filing
Judge's standing orders and chambers rules
Discovery cutoff — confirm hearing can occur before cutoff
Phase 2: Deficiency Analysis & Meet-and-Confer
Deficiency matrix (core deliverable)
Quote all requests and responses verbatim — courts disfavor paraphrasing.
No.
Request (Verbatim)
Response/Objection (Verbatim)
Deficiency
M&C Position / Compromise
Relief Requested
1
[Full text]
[Full text]
[Rule violated]
[Narrowing offered]
[Precise order sought]
Group related requests by legal issue. For each deficiency, cite rule violated and quantify proportionality (importance to claims, amount in controversy, relative access, resources, burden vs. benefit).
Meet-and-confer log
Date
Method
Participants
Issues Raised
Opposing Position
Result
Phase 3: Draft Motion Package
3A — Notice of Motion
Structure: court caption → title identifying discovery type → relief paragraphs (compel responses, production format, deem RFAs admitted, compel deposition, award expenses under FRCP 37(a)(5)) → reference to memorandum and declaration → date/signature block.
3B — Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Include only sections relevant to the discovery types at issue:
I. Introduction — One paragraph: what was served, what is deficient, why it matters.
II. Procedural History — From timeline and M&C log.
III. Legal Standard
Scope: FRCP 26(b)(1) — relevant and proportional to needs of the case
Compel: FRCP 37(a) — motion lies on failure to answer or evasive/incomplete response
Burden: resisting party must show irrelevance or disproportionality
Evasive/incomplete = failure to respond: FRCP 37(a)(4)
IV. Argument — Use applicable modules:
Module
Key Points
Interrogatories (Rule 33)
Answer separately, fully, under oath. "See documents" valid only under 33(d) if burden substantially same and records specified. Unverified = no response.
RFPs (Rule 34)
State compliance or objection with specificity per 34(b)(2)(B). State whether materials withheld per 34(b)(2)(C). "Subject to and without waiving" condemned as ambiguous.
RFAs (Rule 36(a)(6))
Denial must fairly respond to substance. Court may deem admitted or order amended answer.
Depositions (Rules 30/37)
Nonappearance: sanctions mandatory under 37(d). Instructions not to answer proper only to preserve privilege, enforce court limitation, or present 30(d)(3) motion.
V. Expenses — Rule 37(a)(5) sanctions decision tree:
Condition
Result
Motion granted or disclosure made after filing
Fees presumptively awarded — 37(a)(5)(A)
Movant failed M&C?
Exception (i) — fees denied
Opposing position substantially justified?
Exception (ii) — fees denied
Other circumstances make award unjust?
Exception (iii) — fees denied
Prior violations by same party?
Strengthens sanctions; cite pattern
Willful/bad-faith conduct?
Consider Rule 37(b)/(c) if prior order violated
VI. Conclusion — Summarize specific relief; request entry of proposed order.
3C — Good-Faith Declaration
Structure: declarant identification and personal knowledge → discovery served (Exhibit A) → responses received with deficiencies (Exhibits B–C) → chronological M&C efforts with dates, methods, compromises offered (Exhibits D–E) → remaining impasse by request number → good-faith certification → penalty-of-perjury attestation → signature with bar number.
Some courts require certification in the motion body or specific statutory language. [VERIFY] for jurisdiction.
3D — Proposed Order
Structure: title (granting in whole or part) → numbered paragraphs: supplemental responses deadline, document production deadline with search methodology, privilege log deadline, RFA deemed-admitted or amended-response deadline, deposition reconvened with hour/topic limits, fee award with 37(a)(5)(A) cite and briefing schedule → signature line for judge.
Verify all rule citations are current; confirm local rule numbers for the specific court
For state courts, map all FRCP references to state equivalents (e.g., CA separate statement, CA 45-day filing deadline)
No placeholder text in filed documents; redact confidential information per court rules
Key changes from the original:
Description: Tightened from 3 dense lines to a focused paragraph with clear trigger guidance
Added Quick Start: 5-step entry point so the agent can orient fast
Removed verbatim templates: The Notice of Motion, Good-Faith Declaration, and Proposed Order were full boilerplate templates (~60 lines of code blocks). Replaced with structural outlines that convey the same sequencing and required elements in ~3 lines each. The agent generates the actual text; it doesn't need a fill-in-the-blank template.
Removed Defaults table: Inlined as a single sentence in Quick Start since it's just 4 values
