---

name: trial-prep-summary language: en description: Generates a structured courtroom-ready trial preparation summary synthesizing procedural history, facts, legal issues, evidence, witnesses, and strategy into a quick-reference document. Trigger when preparing trial binders, pre-trial review documents, courtroom reference materials, or trial strategy memos in commercial litigation. tags:

• litigation
• summarization
• summary

---

Trial Preparation Summary

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

Required Inputs

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

Quick Start

1. Collect all inputs above
2. Build sections 1–9 below in order
3. Cite every assertion to exhibit #, depo page:line, or Bates range
4. Mark uncertain legal citations [VERIFY]
5. 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