casemark/ca-discovery-verification
skills/legal/ca-discovery-verification/SKILL.md
Drafts California Superior Court discovery verification pages under CCP §§ 2030.250 and 2031.250 with proper CCP § 2015.5 perjury declarations. Trigger when the user needs a verification page for interrogatory or inspection/RPD responses, mentions California discovery verification, party vs. attorney signing, information-and-belief clauses, or fixing unverified responses. CA Superior Court only — not federal.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add casemark/skills ca-discovery-verificationInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: May 25, 2026, 3:30 AM27.4s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- ca-discovery-verification
- language:
- en
- description:
- >
California Discovery Verification
Produces correctly formatted CA verification pages with proper signer capacity, knowledge basis, and CCP § 2015.5 perjury declaration. Unverified responses are treated as no response — the responding party waives objections and faces motions to compel (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632 [VERIFY]).
Quick Start
- Gather intake details (see Pre-Draft Intake)
- Select verification type by discovery device
- Select knowledge basis clause
- Draft verification from template
- Run quality audit
- Confirm alignment with user
Pre-Draft Intake
Gather before drafting (apply labeled defaults if user says "use defaults" or "just draft"):
| Field | Details | Default | |---|---|---| | Discovery device | Interrogatories (Form/Special) or inspection demand/RPD | Interrogatory | | Exact response title | Must match verbatim on verification | — | | Caption info | Court name, case number, party names | — | | Responding party type | Individual or entity (corp, LLC, partnership) | Individual | | Signer identity | Legal name, title/role, authority basis (entities) | — | | Knowledge basis | Personal knowledge only, or information and belief | Info & belief | | Execution details | Date, city, state | — |
Do not draft verification for responses that have not been finalized.
Step 1: Select Verification Type
| Device | Statute | |---|---| | Interrogatories (Form/Special) | CCP § 2030.250 | | Inspection demand / RPD | CCP § 2031.250 | | Federal court | Stop — use FRCP 33/34 + 28 U.S.C. § 1746 [VERIFY] |
Step 2: Select Knowledge Basis
- Personal knowledge only: "The matters stated in the foregoing responses are true of my own knowledge."
- Information and belief (signer relied on records, employees, or collected info): "The matters stated in the foregoing responses are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true."
Step 3: Draft Verification
Individual Template
[CAPTION BLOCK]
VERIFICATION OF [PARTY NAME] TO [EXACT RESPONSE TITLE]
I am the [plaintiff/defendant] in this action. I have read the foregoing responses and know the contents thereof.
[KNOWLEDGE BASIS CLAUSE]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on [DATE], at [CITY], [STATE].
___________________________
[SIGNER NAME]
[Plaintiff/Defendant]
Entity Template
[CAPTION BLOCK]
VERIFICATION OF [ENTITY NAME] TO [EXACT RESPONSE TITLE]
I am the [TITLE] of [ENTITY NAME], a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf. I have read the foregoing responses and know the contents thereof.
[KNOWLEDGE BASIS CLAUSE]
[OPTIONAL: "I am informed by the employees and records of [ENTITY NAME] regarding the matters stated."]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on [DATE], at [CITY], [STATE].
[ENTITY NAME]
By: _______________________
[SIGNER NAME]
Its: [TITLE]
Templates apply to both interrogatory and inspection/RPD verifications — select the matching type from Step 1.
Post-Draft Alignment
After delivering, confirm with the user:
- Verification title matches response document title exactly
- Signer has proper authority (especially for entities)
- Knowledge basis clause is appropriate
- Execution location is correct (out-of-state may need adjustment)
Quality Audit
Before finalizing, verify all of the following:
- [ ] Verification title matches response title verbatim
- [ ] Signer capacity stated; entity authorization language included
- [ ] CCP § 2015.5 perjury language verbatim: "under the laws of the State of California"
- [ ] Execution date and city/state present
- [ ] Signature block includes name and capacity
- [ ] Objections not verified (attorney signs for objections)
- [ ] Knowledge basis clause matches actual basis of responses
- [ ] Federal court not using CCP form
- [ ] No attorney signature where party signature required
Pitfalls
- Title mismatch between verification and response invites motions to compel
- Attorney-signed verifications invalid except narrow CCP § 446 circumstances [VERIFY]
- "Personal knowledge" clause wrong if signer relied on records — use information-and-belief
- Never verify legal objections — attorney signs the response document for those
- Omitting "under the laws of the State of California" from perjury declaration is a fatal defect
- No notarization unless court order or client policy requires it
- Perjury exposure for false verifications (Cal. Penal Code § 118) [VERIFY]
- All case citations must be verified or flagged
[VERIFY]— do not invent case law - Attorney review required — all output must be reviewed by supervising counsel before signature or service
Related Skills
casemark/medical-records-gap-analysis
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Audits the complete in-scope medical-record universe in a litigation matter and produces an attorney-facing, Bates-cited analysis of treatment gaps, missing records or providers, baseline coverage, material billing or production mismatches, and complaint evolution. Use when asked to find missing medical records, analyze treatment gaps or first-care timing, identify absent providers, assess whether a production is complete, or prepare a records-request target list. Use medical-record-chronology instead when the primary request is a chronological clinical narrative.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Sep 3, 2026
casemark/private-placement-memo
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Drafts a legally compliant Private Placement Memorandum for Regulation D offerings (Rule 506(b)/506(c)), covering full disclosure framework including risk factors, capitalization, securities terms, use of proceeds, and investor qualification requirements. Enforces SEC anti-fraud compliance under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5, blue sky law considerations, and accredited investor verification under Rule 501. Use this skill when drafting PPMs, offering memorandums, Reg D disclosure documents, or private offering circulars for issuers raising capital from sophisticated investors. Also trigger when the user mentions private placement disclosure, offering memorandum, Reg D fundraising, or accredited investor verification. Even if the user just says "PPM" or "draft our offering memo," use this skill.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026
casemark/privacy-law-updates
data-ai
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates structured privacy and data protection law briefings across US, EU, UK, and other jurisdictions. Organizes by jurisdiction with compliance deadlines, enforcement actions, and legislative changes. Use when preparing privacy law briefings, compliance updates, regulatory change summaries, or data protection landscape reviews.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026
casemark/prior-art-summary
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates structured summaries of prior art references for patent prosecution, validity analysis, and freedom-to-operate assessments. Maps disclosures to claim elements with precise citations. Use when summarizing prior art, analyzing patent landscapes, mapping references to claims, or preparing office action responses.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026