Trial Preparation Summary

Synthesizes case materials into a single courtroom-ready reference organized for rapid access during examination, argument, and tactical decisions.

Required Inputs

Pleadings — complaint, answer, counterclaims, amended pleadings
Discovery — interrogatory responses, RFP productions, RFA responses
Depositions — transcripts with page:line citations
Expert reports — opinions, methodology, bases
Motions & orders — dispositive motions, MILs, rulings
Exhibit list — pre-marked exhibits with Bates ranges
Witness list — anticipated witnesses for both sides

Quick Start

Collect all inputs above
Build sections 1–9 below in order
Cite every assertion to exhibit #, depo page:line, or Bates range
Mark uncertain legal citations [VERIFY]
Use tables over prose throughout

Output Sections

1. Case Overview

| Field | Content | |-------|---------| | Caption | Full case caption | | Court / Judge | Court, department, judge | | Trial date | Date(s), estimated duration | | Causes of action | Claims/counterclaims with statutory or common-law basis | | Burden of proof | Party bearing burden per claim/defense | | Relief sought | Damages figures, equitable relief, fees |

2. Procedural History

Reverse-chronological table of significant docket entries:

| Date | Event | Order/Ruling | Impact on Trial | |------|-------|--------------|-----------------|

Flag pending motions, unresolved discovery disputes, deferred evidentiary rulings, and approaching deadlines (pretrial conference, exhibit exchange, witness disclosure).

3. Factual Narrative

Chronology table — date, event, source (exhibit #, depo cite), disputed/undisputed
Undisputed facts — stipulated or established by RFA admissions
Disputed facts — competing versions with supporting evidence for each side

4. Element Mapping

One table per claim/defense (repeat for multi-count cases):

| Element | Governing Law | Our Evidence | Their Evidence | Strength (1–5) | |---------|--------------|--------------|----------------|-----------------|

Per claim, also note: jury instruction references, standard of proof, key distinguishing case law.

5. Evidence Inventory

| Exhibit # | Description | Auth. Witness | Foundation Issues | Anticipated Objections | MIL Status | |-----------|-------------|---------------|-------------------|----------------------|------------|

Flag exhibits needing business-records foundation (FRE 803(6)), expert authentication, or chain-of-custody proof.

6. Witness Summaries

Per witness:

| Field | Content | |-------|---------| | Name / Role | | | Calling party | Plaintiff / Defendant / Both | | Key topics | | | Favorable depo cites | Page:line | | Impeachment material | Prior inconsistent statements, bias, interest | | Availability | Voluntary / subpoenaed / issues |

Separate fact witnesses from experts. For experts add: opinions offered, methodology, Daubert challenge status.

7. Motions in Limine Tracker

| Motion | Filed By | Subject | Status | Impact if Granted | Impact if Denied | |--------|----------|---------|--------|-------------------|-----------------|

8. Damages / Relief Analysis

Damages model — methodology, supporting docs, expert basis
Damages table — category, amount claimed, evidence, vulnerabilities
Equitable relief — terms sought, legal standard, factual predicates
Fees/costs — contractual or statutory basis, documented amounts

9. Strategic Assessment

Case theory — one-paragraph narrative for the fact-finder
Strongest arguments — ranked with supporting evidence
Key vulnerabilities — candid weaknesses with mitigation strategies
Anticipated opposing themes — their narrative and rebuttal points
Trial flow — suggested witness order, examination priorities
Contingencies — if-then scenarios for adverse rulings or unexpected testimony

Pitfalls

Unsourced assertions — every fact must cite exhibit #, depo page:line, or Bates range
Stale citations — mark all legal citations [VERIFY] unless confirmed current and jurisdictionally on-point
Advocacy creep — maintain neutral analytical tone; flag weaknesses candidly
General legal summaries — skip principles the attorney already knows; focus on case-specific application
Missing Daubert flags — always note whether a reliability challenge is pending or viable for expert testimony