Skip to main content 홈 크리에이터 thomasmoreai legal-skills-open discovery-plan
discovery-plan Drafts Joint Discovery Plans and Proposed Scheduling Orders under FRCP 26(f) or state equivalents. Analyzes pleadings, court requirements, and case complexity to produce discovery timelines, ESI protocols, privilege procedures, and scheduling deadlines. Use when preparing Rule 26(f) reports, proposed scheduling orders, case management plans, or discovery frameworks after meet-and-confer.
설치로 이동 Skills Marketplace 커뮤니티가 만든 AI 스킬을 발견하고 탐색하세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill discovery-plan명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
Zip 다운로드 다운로드 중... 이 저장소의 다른 Skills fetching-arbitration-rules Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
determining-pl-request-regime Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
applying-new-york-convention Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
name discovery-plan title Joint Discovery Plan & Proposed Scheduling Order description Drafts Joint Discovery Plans and Proposed Scheduling Orders under FRCP 26(f) or state equivalents. Analyzes pleadings, court requirements, and case complexity to produce discovery timelines, ESI protocols, privilege procedures, and scheduling deadlines. Use when preparing Rule 26(f) reports, proposed scheduling orders, case management plans, or discovery frameworks after meet-and-confer. author CaseMark author_url https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/discovery-plan license Apache-2.0 version 0.1.0 execution_mode open jurisdiction us practice litigation language en tags ["drafting","pleading"]
Joint Discovery Plan & Proposed Scheduling Order
Produces a court-ready Joint Discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order reflecting FRCP 26(f) meet-and-confer results while protecting client interests.
Required Inputs
Complaint, answer, amended pleadings — all claims, defenses, counterclaimsMeet-and-confer details — date, participating attorneysCourt information — court/division, case number, judge, local rules, standing ordersInitial disclosures — if exchangedExisting court orders — CMC minutes, scheduling preferences, model templates
Workflow
1. Analyze Discovery Scope
For each claim/defense, identify:
Elements requiring proof and key disputed facts
Document types, custodians, and witness categories
Proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1): importance of issues, amount in controversy, relative access, party resources
2. Draft Document Sections
Section Contents Caption & Introduction Court/division, case number, parties, cite to FRCP 26(f) or state equivalent, meet-and-confer date and counsel Discovery Subjects & Scope Claim-by-claim discovery needs tied to legal elements and factual disputes ESI Protocol Production formats, metadata, search terms, TAR/predictive coding, preservation Privilege Procedures FRE 502(d) clawback, privilege log requirements, timing Discovery Limitations Depositions, interrogatories, RFAs, time/geographic/custodian limits Phased Discovery If warranted: threshold issues, liability/damages bifurcation, multi-defendant sequencing Proposed Schedule All milestone deadlines in tabular format Signature Blocks & Certificate of Service All counsel of record with bar numbers, firm, address, phone, email
3. Set ESI Protocol
Format : Native for spreadsheets/databases; searchable PDF or TIFF+load files for static documentsMetadata : Author, recipient, dates created/modified, custodian, plus case-specific fieldsEmail : Preserve threading and family relationships
Search : Exchange proposed terms → validate against samples → refine precision/recall; specify TAR if used
Preservation : Custodians, data sources (email, drives, cloud, mobile, social), time period, departing employee protocols
Cost allocation : Burden-shifting for disproportionate costs, backup tapes, forensic imaging
Deduplication : Global vs. custodian-level
4. Define Privilege Framework Element Provision Clawback order FRE 502(d) — inadvertent production does not waive privilege Clawback procedure Written notice with specificity + privilege basis → return/destroy within 5–10 business days Receiving party duty Assert within 30 days or before use in deposition/filing Privilege log fields Date, author, recipients, document type, subject description Log timing 30 days after each production (or rolling) Categorical exclusions Consider post-litigation counsel-client and pure legal advice communications Common interest/JDA Address if applicable
5. Set Discovery Limitations Type Presumptive Limit Rule Depositions per side 10 (adjust for complexity) Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) Deposition duration 7 hours/deponent Rule 30(d)(1) Interrogatories 25 including subparts Rule 33(a)(1) RFAs 25–50 (stipulate) Rule 36 Contention interrogatories Deferred until close of fact discovery —
Include format (in-person/remote), location protocols, and cost allocation for reporters/videographers.
6. Build Proposed Schedule Work backward from anticipated trial date:
Milestone Guideline Join parties +90–120 days from order Amend pleadings +120–180 days Fact discovery closes +9–12 months (moderate complexity) Plaintiff expert reports +30–60 days after fact discovery Defendant expert reports +60–90 days after plaintiff reports Rebuttal expert reports +30–45 days after defendant reports Expert depositions complete +30–45 days after final reports Dispositive motions +30–45 days after expert discovery Responses +21–30 days Replies +14–21 days Motions in limine / jury instructions –30–45 days before trial Final pretrial conference –14–30 days before trial Trial ~18–24 months from order (moderate)
Adjust for party count, document volume, expert count, jurisdictional constraints, court availability.
7. Add Modification Provisions
Fact/expert extensions: by stipulation with court approval if they do not affect dispositive motion or trial dates
Dispositive/trial changes: court approval, good cause required
Meet-and-confer required before any modification request
Optional status conferences at key intervals
8. Assess Phased Discovery
Jurisdictional or limitations issues are threshold
Liability and damages are naturally bifurcated
Multi-defendant cases have distinct factual tracks
Sampling custodians can inform broader discovery scope
Specify clear phase triggers, transition procedures, and right to modify if phasing proves unworkable.
Pitfalls & Checks
Cite FRCP 26(f) or state equivalent in introduction; confirm local rule and standing order compliance
Ground every discovery subject in specific pleading allegations — no generic categories
Use court-adoptable format ("IT IS HEREBY ORDERED" or separate proposed order)
Number all paragraphs for easy reference
Verify all deadlines are internally consistent and comply with local rules
Check for model plans or templates required by the specific court/judge
Include certificate of service compliant with applicable rules
Tone: cooperative where appropriate, protective of client interests where necessary
