casemark/motion-to-compel

Motion to Compel Discovery

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

1. Court + jurisdiction — federal district or state/county; local rule requirements (separate statement, page limits, pre-motion conference, joint letter)
2. Discovery at issue — interrogatories (Rule 33), RFPs (Rule 34), RFAs (Rule 36), depositions (Rules 30/31), subpoenas (Rule 45)
3. Verbatim text — requests served and responses/objections received, quoted exactly
4. Chronology — service dates, response deadlines, extensions, court orders, discovery cutoff
5. Meet-and-confer record — dates, methods, participants, concessions, remaining disputes
6. Targeted relief — specific items to compel, ESI format, privilege log demands, fees/sanctions sought
7. Prejudice — specific harm from the discovery failure

Quick Start

1. Collect prerequisites above.
2. Map discovery type to rule authority (Phase 1 table).
3. Build deficiency matrix quoting requests and responses verbatim.
4. Draft motion package: Notice → Memorandum → Declaration → Proposed Order.
5. Run filing-readiness checks before submission.

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)
• [ ] Motion-to-compel filing deadline (state rules may impose strict windows, e.g., CA: 45 days)
• [ ] Scheduling order discovery-motion deadlines
• [ ] 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.

3E — Exhibit checklist

• [ ] A: Discovery requests as served
• [ ] B: Responses and objections received
• [ ] C: Deficiency matrix
• [ ] D: Meet-and-confer letter(s)
• [ ] E: Follow-up correspondence confirming impasse
• [ ] F: Stipulations/extensions
• [ ] G: Deposition transcript excerpts (if obstruction)
• [ ] H: ESI correspondence/protocol (if ESI dispute)
• [ ] I: Relevant scheduling order portions

Phase 4: Filing Readiness

Local rules compliance

• [ ] Pre-motion conference / IDC completed if required
• [ ] Joint statement / joint letter prepared if required
• [ ] Separate statement in jurisdiction-required format (request → response → reasons → relief)
• [ ] Page limits, formatting, exhibit labeling verified
• [ ] Judge's individual practices reviewed
• [ ] Notice period and calendaring rules confirmed
• [ ] E-filing requirements confirmed; proposed order uploaded separately
• [ ] Certificate of service prepared

Hearing preparation

• [ ] 1–2 page disputes summary (top 3–5 contested requests, one-sentence argument each)
• [ ] Proportionality talking points (importance, amount in controversy, relative access, resources, burden vs. benefit)
• [ ] Narrowed compromise position ready (phased production, reduced custodians, date-range limits, sampling)
• [ ] Fee documentation with Rule 37(a)(5) exceptions addressed preemptively
• [ ] Responses to anticipated opposition (proportionality, privilege, burden, work product)

Output Modes

| Mode | Contents | |------|----------| | Full Package (default) | Notice + Memorandum + Declaration + Deficiency Matrix + Proposed Order + Exhibit Checklist | | Matrix + Templates | Deficiency Matrix + Declaration + Proposed Order + Timeline Table | | Compliance Checklist | Deadline + M&C + Local Rules + Hearing Prep checklists (no drafted text) |

Refinement Options

| Option | Description | |--------|-------------| | State conversion | Provide state/court; all FRCP cites replaced with state analogs and special requirements incorporated | | Separate statement | Standalone separate statement in jurisdiction-required format | | Aggressive tone | Sanctions-focused tone emphasizing obstructionist conduct and noncompliance pattern | | ESI relief | Detailed ESI sections: custodians, data sources, search terms/TAR, metadata, native format, clawback | | RFA variant | Focused motion under Rule 36(a)(6) to determine sufficiency or deem admitted | | Deposition variant | Focused motion under Rule 37(d) for nonappearance | | Joint letter | 3–5 page joint discovery letter format for magistrate judges |

Guidelines

• Quote all discovery requests and responses verbatim — courts disfavor paraphrasing
• Burden assignment: resisting party must justify objections with specific facts
• Relief must be precise: specific request numbers, deadlines, format, verification, privilege log deadline
• Address Rule 37(a)(5) exceptions preemptively (substantial justification, good faith, unjust circumstances)
• 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
• Preserved all legal-critical content: Rule mapping table, rule reference table, sanctions decision tree, argument modules, deficiency matrix schema, deadline checklist, exhibit checklist, filing readiness checklists — all retained verbatim
• Added [VERIFY] tag on the declaration jurisdiction note, consistent with other legal skills in the repo
• Net reduction: ~285 lines → ~175 lines (~39% smaller) with no loss of procedural accuracy