Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts
Strategy

Plan a deposition strategy

Turns your document set into three goals, the exact admission sentence you want in the transcript, a timed topic sequence, and an impeachment path for every dodge.

About 15 minadvancedLitigation

Checked against standard v2 on Sep 29, 2026 revised Sep 19, 2026

What to gather first

  • The witness's role, posture, and relationship to the other side
  • Court and discovery rules: time limits, remote or in person, who supervises discovery
  • The documents this witness authored, received, or approved
  • Prior sworn statements: declarations, verified interrogatory responses, earlier testimony
  • What the transcript is for: summary judgment, trial impeachment, or leverage

Your prompt5,368 characters

Still to fill in: Witness, Case theme this deposition serves, Facts, documents, and prior testimony, Court and discovery rules

RoleYou are a trial lawyer who plans depositions the way a surgeon plans a procedure: you know what you are going in for before you scrub, and you come out with it. You mark documents before you go after admissions so the witness never sees the trap forming, and you refuse to ask a question whose answer you could not live with at trial.What I needBuild the deposition strategy for Witness in Court and discovery rules. The transcript is primarily for Build the summary judgment record and I have 3 hours on the record. Every block has to earn its way back to this theme: Case theme this deposition serves.InputsWitness: Witness Court and discovery rules: Court and discovery rules Case theme: Case theme this deposition serves Primary purpose: Build the summary judgment record Time on the record: 3 hours Facts, documents, and prior testimony: Facts, documents, and prior testimonyHow to work this1. Pick exactly three goals for this witness and justify each in one sentence by what it does for Build the summary judgment record. If a fourth is tempting, name it and say which witness should carry it instead. 2. For the lock-in goal, write the exact sentence you want in the transcript (the words I would block-quote in a brief or read to a jury), then the three-question ladder that walks the witness there without warning them. 3. List every document in Facts, documents, and prior testimony this witness can authenticate, in the order you would mark them. Flag any document I would burn by showing it now, and what I give up by holding it back. 4. Identify the version of events you are pinning the witness to, and name the document or other witness's testimony that will later contradict it. 5. Build the topic sequence as a table with minutes that add up to 3 hours: background, authentication, lock-in, pin-down, open exploration, cleanup. Authentication before substance, without exception. 6. For each of the three likeliest dodges: "I do not recall," "that was someone else's decision," "I would have to see the file": write the follow-up and name the exhibit that closes it off. 7. Identify the one question this witness will dread, place it late, and say what I do with the answer either way. 8. Flag any topic where the notice, a protective order, or Court and discovery rules's rules could limit me, and mark it [CHECK THE ORDER].Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait: 1. Have you seen this witness testify or be interviewed, and how does she behave: does she volunteer, does she argue, does she go quiet and wait? The outline changes shape depending on whether silence or over-explanation is the thing to exploit. 2. Which documents did this witness author, receive, or approve, and which of them am I willing to burn by showing them before trial? 3. How does opposing counsel defend a deposition: speaking objections, instructions not to answer, aggressive privilege calls, and has the court already ruled on any of it in this case? Do not begin work until I answer. If I tell you to proceed anyway, state each assumption you are making at the top of your output and mark it [ASSUMPTION - verify].Output formatThree numbered goals, each with its one-sentence justification. The lock-in sentence in quotation marks, followed by the question ladder. A topic sequence table: block, topic, minutes, exhibits, note. An evasion table: likely dodge, follow-up question, closing exhibit. The dreaded question, with what to do with each possible answer. A short list of [CHECK THE ORDER] flags. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the goals or the order of the blocks, and what plan you would have handed me without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- A deposition plan that would work against any witness in any case is too generic. Build it from this witness's documents, this witness's prior sworn statements, and the theme I gave you. - No hedging. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "it depends." Questions go in the plan in the words I will actually say at the table. Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one taking the deposition. - Every exhibit number, page-line cite, or rule must come from my inputs or be marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm before the deposition]. Never invent a transcript cite, an exhibit number, or a document that is not in my production. - If you do not know whether a topic falls inside the 30(b)(6) notice or whether a document has been produced, say you do not know rather than assuming it is fair game. - No padding. A plan listing forty topics is a plan the witness runs out on the clock. Length is not value here; the clock is.Before you answer- Are there exactly three goals, or did a fourth sneak in? - Do the block minutes actually add up to 3 hours? - Is the lock-in written as a sentence I could read to a jury, or did it come out as a topic heading? - Does authentication come before every substantive admission that depends on it? - Would this plan work just as well against a different witness? It should not. - Is any exhibit number or transcript cite here unverified and unmarked?

Running it takes you through the three turns (the first prompt, the pressure test, and the follow-up) and a check of the answer, in order. The Cockpit lets you add tunes. Both keep the values you entered. You can change your own copy as you like. It is labeled as yours everywhere it appears.

2

Pressure-test it

Asks the AI to look for weaknesses in its own answer.

A conference room the weekend before the deposition: the witness on one side of the table, my outline on the other. Run that session as the lawyer defending this witness. Where do you tell them to slow down, ask for the document, or answer only the question asked? Which line of questioning do you plan to object to, and where would an instruction not to answer actually stick? Then come back to my side and rework the sequence and the two most vulnerable questions so the defense costs me minutes instead of the admission.
3

Go deeper

Asks for more detail and further work once the first answer is right.

Swearing-in is done and the room is still friendly. Write the first thirty minutes as a literal script: the ground-rules colloquy, the first two exhibits with the authentication questions in the exact words I will say, and one small admission the witness gives before they are guarded. Mark where I pause for the objection.
4Check what came backPaste the AI's answer and check it, item by item, against this prompt's rules.

Watch for

  • Time on the record is the real constraint. A plan listing forty topics is a plan that ends at topic twelve. Cut before you walk in, not at hour six.
  • The model will produce exhibit numbers and page-line cites that look right and are not. Check every record cite against your actual exhibit list and transcripts.
  • 30(b)(6) notices, protective orders, and per-deposition time limits differ by court and by case. Confirm scope and duration before you rely on a topic being fair game.
  • A privilege instruction can strand a whole block. Carry a backup path for each so you are not improvising when the lock-in line is blocked.
  • Deposition outlines are work product. Do not paste privileged assessments or client-confidential documents unless your firm's AI policy and the engagement terms permit it.

What comes back

Three numbered goals with one-sentence justifications; the lock-in sentence in quotation marks plus the question ladder that reaches it; a topic sequence table with block, topic, minutes, exhibits, and notes summing to the available time; an evasion table pairing each likely dodge with a follow-up and a closing exhibit; the dreaded question with both answer branches; and a short list of scope flags to check against the notice and protective order.

See an example answer
*(After you answer the three questions: you deposed Rivera in a 2023 matter, where she over-explained when she was nervous and went flat once she saw where a line was going; opposing counsel is a speaking-objection lawyer; Magistrate Judge Illman already warned both sides at the February conference.)* Three goals 1. Lock-in: Get Rivera to say Hayes directed the termination. It puts a named decisionmaker in the causation chain, which is what the MSJ record is missing. 2. Authenticate: Ex. 9, 14, 18, and 22, every document I need at trial that Rivera sent, received, or maintained. 3. Pin the story: Lock her to "no written performance concern before March 3," which her own declaration at para. 7 will then contradict. The lock-in sentence I want: "Mr. Hayes told me to terminate her." *Ladder:* (a) "Who made the final decision to end Ms. Okafor's employment?" (b) "Did anyone above you have to approve it?" (c) "Who told you to carry it out?" Topic sequence: full day (7 hours = 420 minutes on the record) | Block | Topic | Min | Exhibits | Note | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | Background, role, reporting lines | 30 | none | Lock title, dates, who she reported to. | | 2 | Document authentication | 60 | Ex. 9, 14, 18, 22 | Mark everything before a single substantive question. | | 3 | Pre-March performance record | 75 | Ex. 9, 18 | Pin-down block. Get "nothing in writing" before she sees why. | | 4 | The March 3 email and what followed | 90 | Ex. 14, 18 | Lock-in ladder lives here. | | 5 | Decision chain and Hayes's role | 75 | Ex. 22 | Calendar entries corner the "I was not in that meeting" answer. | | 6 | Open exploration | 60 | none | Everything I did not know to ask. | | 7 | Cleanup and holds | 30 | none | Document retention, who else has knowledge. | Evasions | Dodge | Follow-up | Closing exhibit | |---|---|---| | "I do not recall." | "Would seeing the email refresh your recollection?" then read it into the record. | Ex. 14 | | "That was Mr. Hayes's decision." | "And you executed it, correct? Who told you to?" | Ex. 22, calendar | | "I would have to see the file." | Hand her Ex. 18 and ask her to find the document she is describing. | Ex. 18 | The dreaded question, late in Block 5: "Between January 1 and March 3, did you document a single performance concern about Ms. Okafor?" If she says no, it contradicts her declaration at para. 7. If she says yes, she has to find it in Ex. 18 on the record, and it is not there. [CHECK THE ORDER] Topics 4 and 7 of the 30(b)(6) notice may not cover Hayes's calendar. Confirm before Block 5, or take the calendar questions in her individual capacity. What your answers changed. That she over-explains when she is nervous is what created Block 3 and put it ahead of the March 3 email. Those 75 minutes exist to give her room to talk herself into "nothing in writing before March 3" while the questions still look like background. Against a witness who answers short and waits, that block is an hour spent for nothing and the day opens on Ex. 14 instead, where she tells the performance story from a position she can still defend. Your answer that opposing counsel speaks through her objections, and that Illman has already warned both sides, is why all four exhibits are marked in one 60-minute block before a single substantive question. A mechanical authentication run gives a speaking objector nothing to work with, and the February warning is what makes a call to chambers credible if she does it anyway.
Why this prompt is written this way
## Framework 1. **Three goals, no more.** Pick the three things this witness can actually give you. A fourth goal belongs to a different witness. 2. **Goal 1: the lock-in.** Write the exact sentence you want in the transcript, then the question ladder that gets there without warning. 3. **Goal 2: authentication.** Mark the documents you will need at trial, in an order that does not telegraph the lock-in. 4. **Goal 3: pin the story.** Lock the witness to one version that a document or another witness will later contradict. 5. **Sequence.** Background, then authentication, then the lock-in, then the pin-down, then open exploration, then cleanup. Never substance before marking. 6. **Budget the clock.** Blocks with minutes that add up to the time you actually have. 7. **Plan for evasion.** For each likely dodge, the follow-up and the exhibit that closes it off. 8. **One dreaded question.** Identify it, place it late, and know what you do with either answer.