Litigation Support

Builds a date-ordered case chronology from a stack of document excerpts or summaries. Reach for it at the start of discovery or before drafting a statement of facts.

## Context
You are a litigation paralegal building a master chronology in [CASE NAME]. The claims and defenses: [CLAIMS AND DEFENSES]. Key players: [KEY PLAYERS]. The relevant period runs [DATE RANGE]. I will paste document excerpts or summaries below, each tagged with a Bates number or exhibit reference.

## Task
Build a chronology table with these columns: Date | Event | Source (Bates or exhibit no.) | Players involved | Why it matters to the claims or defenses.

## Standards
- One row per event. Sort by date, earliest first.
- Use exact dates from the documents. If a document gives only a month or an approximate date, write it as stated and add "(approx.)".
- Every row cites at least one source document. No row without a cite.
- Describe events in neutral terms. No characterizations of intent and no legal conclusions in the Event column. Argument-relevant notes go only in the last column, marked "Possible significance:".
- If two documents conflict on a date or fact, put both versions in one row and flag it "CONFLICT".
- Do not infer events no document supports. If a gap looks important, list it under a final heading "Gaps and missing periods".
- Plain English. No adjectives like "damning" or "smoking-gun".

Documents:
[DOCUMENT EXCERPTS OR SUMMARIES]

If any document lacks a date or a Bates reference, ask me before placing it rather than guessing.

Sample output — AI-generated from sample inputs:
(Meridian Supply Co. v. Harlan Fabrication LLC — breach of supply agreement)

| Date | Event | Source | Players | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-15 | Parties sign Supply Agreement; 24-month term, 5,000-unit monthly minimum | MER-000112 | Whitfield (Meridian), Okafor (Harlan) | Sets the minimum-quantity term at issue |
| 2024-06-03 | Okafor emails Whitfield: April shipment "short by roughly 1,200 units" due to "press downtime" | MER-000487 | Okafor, Whitfield | Possible significance: first written notice of shortfall; states a cause |
| 2024-06-20 (approx.) | Internal Harlan memo cites "ongoing capacity issue since spring" | HAR-002201 | Reyes, Okafor | Possible significance: internal knowledge before the June 3 assurances |
| 2024-07-08 | CONFLICT — Meridian letter states cure deadline of July 1 (MER-000530); Harlan reply states July 15 (HAR-002340) | MER-000530; HAR-002340 | Whitfield, Okafor | Cure-period dispute bears on the termination claim |

Gaps and missing periods: no documents between 2024-02-01 and 2024-05-30 despite monthly shipments due under § 3.2.

Drafts a confidential mediation statement for the mediator's eyes only. Use it two to three weeks out, once you have the damages numbers and the negotiation history in hand.

## Context
You are a litigation drafting assistant for a solo attorney. Draft a confidential mediation statement for the mediator only — the other side will not see it. Case: [CASE CAPTION AND COURT]. Client: [CLIENT AND POSITION]. Mediator: [MEDIATOR NAME AND BACKGROUND, IF KNOWN]. Dispute summary: [TWO-PARAGRAPH DISPUTE SUMMARY]. Procedural posture: [POSTURE — MOTIONS PENDING, DISCOVERY STATUS, TRIAL DATE]. Liability strengths: [STRENGTHS]. Weaknesses and bad facts: [WEAKNESSES AND BAD FACTS]. Damages: [DAMAGES BREAKDOWN WITH NUMBERS]. Settlement history: [PRIOR DEMANDS AND OFFERS]. Goal: [TARGET RANGE AND MUST-HAVE TERMS].

## Task
Draft the statement, five to eight pages of content, in this order: introduction and what the client wants from mediation; factual background told as a clear story; procedural posture; liability analysis that addresses our weaknesses head-on instead of hiding them; damages with a simple table; settlement history and why talks stalled; obstacles to settlement and how the mediator can help; conclusion with our realistic range.

## Standards
- Candid tone. This document persuades the mediator we are reasonable, not that we are invincible. Concede what the record makes us concede.
- No case citations unless I supply them. Where law matters, write [CITE] and describe the point so I can add verified authority.
- Plain sentences. No adjectives doing the work facts should do.
- Label the settlement-range section CONFIDENTIAL — MEDIATOR'S EYES ONLY.
- Flag every factual statement you cannot trace to my inputs as [CONFIRM].

If a required input is missing, list what you need and stop. Do not draft around gaps.

Sample output — AI-generated from sample inputs (Pell Family Dental v. Meridian Supply Co., defective autoclave, plaintiff side):

III. Liability
Meridian will say Dr. Pell's staff ignored the maintenance schedule. The argument has surface appeal, and we address it directly. The service log shows two missed monthly checks in 2024. [CONFIRM: log produced as Ex. 9.] But Meridian's own technician inspected the unit in January 2025 and certified it serviceable — six weeks before the chamber failure. The missed checks cannot explain a sealed-component failure that Meridian's manual says only factory service can reach.

IV. Damages
Equipment replacement: $41,200 (invoice attached)
Practice interruption, 11 days: $38,940 (production reports, 2024 daily average)
Repair attempts: $6,150
Total: $86,290

VII. Obstacles to Settlement
The parties value the maintenance defense differently, and Meridian's last offer predates the technician's deposition. The mediator can help by testing Meridian's read of that testimony in caucus.

CONFIDENTIAL — MEDIATOR'S EYES ONLY
Dr. Pell will accept $70,000 paid within 30 days. The number reflects real trial risk on the maintenance defense, which we estimate cuts our verdict expectation by roughly 20 percent.