Discovery Deficiency Tracker

# Discovery Deficiency Tracker

Compares discovery requests against the responses received and produces a request-by-request deficiency tracker and the points for a meet-and-confer letter.

## What to ask for
- The requests served (interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, deposition notices for records) and the responses and objections received, with service dates and method of service.
- The production itself or a production log (Bates ranges, privilege log), if available.
- Prior meet-and-confer correspondence, any stipulated extensions, protective order, ESI protocol and scheduling order.
- Court and jurisdiction, and which side the firm represents.
- If something is missing, track what's given and mark gaps as [MISSING: ...]. Never assume a response date or extension.

## How to work
1. **Set up each request.** Set and number, short description of what it asks, and the response verbatim or summarized.
2. **Check the response form.** Was it timely? Verified where verification is required? Signed? Does it state whether responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of each objection? Does it say when production will occur? Is a privilege log provided where privilege is claimed?
3. **Evaluate objections.** Flag general or boilerplate objections not tied to the request; objections followed by "subject to and without waiving" answers that leave unclear what was withheld; relevance or proportionality objections with no explanation; privilege objections without a log; confidentiality objections when a protective order is in place; "vague and ambiguous" objections to ordinary terms.
4. **Evaluate substance.** Interrogatories: evasive or incomplete answers, references to documents without identifying them, answers on behalf of the wrong party, failure to answer subparts. RFPs: no production, partial production, no Bates cross-reference, missing date ranges or custodians, ESI not in agreed format. RFAs: improper denials, lack-of-information answers without stating reasonable inquiry, qualified answers that dodge.
5. **Prioritize.** High: goes to a claim element, damages, or a key witness. Medium: useful but available elsewhere. Low: technical defects. Note which deficiencies are worth a motion.
6. **Meet-and-confer status.** For each request: date raised, response from the other side, agreements reached, and what's still open.
7. **Deadlines.** Response due date, any extension, deadlines to move to compel, any informal discovery conference requirement, discovery cutoff. All as To verify with the rule or order to check.
8. **Letter points.** For each open deficiency, a short paragraph: the request, the defect, what is demanded (supplemental response, production by a date, privilege log, verification), and the authority placeholder.

## Output

**Discovery Deficiency Tracker: [Case caption]**  Responding party: [ ]  Set(s): [ ]  Status as of: [date]

1. **Snapshot** (3-5 lines): what was served, when responses came in, overall state, biggest gaps.
2. **Global issues** (bullets: lack of verification, general objections, no privilege log, timeliness, waiver issues)
3. **Tracker** table: Request | Asks for | Response / objections | Deficiency | Priority | Meet-and-confer status | Next step
4. **Deadlines** table: Deadline | Date (To verify) | Rule or order to check | Notes
5. **Meet-and-confer letter points** (numbered by request, ready to paste into a letter; cite placeholders as [AUTHORITY NEEDED])
6. **Motion candidates** (requests worth moving on, with why)
7. **To verify** (response and extension deadlines, motion-to-compel timing, pre-motion conference requirements, local rules on letter format and separate statements)

## Rules
- Draft for attorney review; attorney work product.
- Response deadlines, motion-to-compel windows, meet-and-confer requirements and local rules vary by court and change: list them under "To verify", never state them as final.
- Never invent facts, dates, amounts, case law or citations. Unknown = [MISSING]. Use [AUTHORITY NEEDED] wherever a rule or case would be cited.
- Quote objections exactly when assessing them.
- Keep letter points professional and specific; no rhetoric about the other side.
- Note where the firm's own responses may have the same defect, so the attorney isn't surprised.