Case Chronology Drafting Guide: Template + Claude Workflow

The Short Answer

A case chronology is a dated, source-cited table of events, and drafting one well comes down to four rules: one event per row, a pin cite on every row, both versions of any disputed fact, and a separate contradictions list. Below is a table template you can copy, the method for building it from mixed sources (pleadings, medical or business records, emails, transcripts), and the Claude workflow that produces a cited first draft in a single pass so your time goes into verification and analysis instead of data entry.

The chronology is the most reused document in a litigation file. It feeds the statement of facts, the deposition outline, the mediation statement, the expert's fact assumptions, and the trial timeline. Build it once, correctly, and keep it current.

What a Chronology Is (and Is Not)

A chronology answers "what happened, when, and how do we know." It is not a narrative, not argument, and not a summary of each document. A document that mentions three events produces three rows. An event mentioned in four documents produces one row with four cites, or, if the documents disagree, several rows marked disputed. Neutral language throughout: "Okafor emailed maintenance about the bay 6 light" rather than "Meridian ignored the lighting hazard." The argument comes later, and it will be stronger for having been built on a neutral record.

The Chronology Table Template

Date / time	Precision	Event	Source and pin cite	Source type	People	Issues	Status	Notes
2025-11-03 21:40	Exact	[One neutral sentence]	[MER_000412 at 2; or Okafor Dep. 31:1-33:17; or Compl. para. 14]	[Email / record / transcript / pleading / photo]	[Names]	[Issue tags from a fixed list]	[UNDISPUTED / DISPUTED / UNVERIFIED]	[Conflicts, follow-up, gaps]

Three columns are worth defending against anyone who wants a shorter table:

• Precision. "Exact," "date only," "approximate (week of)," or "inferred from context." A chronology that shows 2025-11-03 for an event a witness placed "in early November" is manufacturing precision, and it will be exposed at deposition.
• Status. UNDISPUTED means multiple independent sources agree or the other side has admitted it. DISPUTED means sources conflict. UNVERIFIED means one source, not yet checked. The status column is what makes the chronology usable for a motion for summary judgment, where the undisputed rows are the material.
• Source type. A contemporaneous email and a recollection given eighteen months later in a deposition are not equal evidence of a date. Recording the type lets you weight conflicts sensibly.

The Contradictions List

Keep a second, short table alongside the chronology:

#	Event	Version A (source)	Version B (source)	Why it matters	Resolution plan
1	Whether supervisor saw the collision	Incident report says supervisor "observed" (MER_000088 para. 2)	Supervisor testified he did not see it (Okafor Dep. 36:10-38:22)	Report credibility; notice of conditions	Confront at trial; obtain report drafts

(The example row is from a fictional matter used throughout our litigation guides; it does not describe a real case.) The contradictions list is where the case theory usually lives. Contradictions between the other side's documents and its witnesses are impeachment; contradictions inside your own evidence are problems to solve before the other side finds them.

Building It From Mixed Sources

Different source types yield events differently, and the extraction rules should match.

• Pleadings. Every numbered paragraph that asserts a dated fact becomes a row, cited by paragraph. Mark the status by comparing the complaint's allegation with the answer's response: admitted paragraphs are UNDISPUTED, denied ones DISPUTED, and the rest UNVERIFIED.
• Medical, business, and government records. Records are dense with dates. Extract the events that bear on the issues, not every visit or transaction, and cite by Bates and page. Record the record's own date and the event date separately when they differ (a note dictated on the 5th about a visit on the 3rd).
• Emails and messages. The sent timestamp is exact; the events described inside the email may not be. Two rows are often correct: one for the communication itself, one for the event it reports, with the second marked by its precision.
• Deposition transcripts. Cite page:line. Witness recollection is the weakest source for dates, so mark precision honestly and prefer a document where one exists. If you already have page-line summaries, work from those; see the deposition summary generator and summarize a brief or transcript.
• Photos, video, and physical evidence. Date from metadata or from a witness who can authenticate; note the basis in the precision column.

Undated events go in a holding list at the bottom of the chronology, not into the table with a guessed date. Part of drafting is working the holding list down by finding a source that dates each entry.

The Claude Workflow

Claude turns the extraction rules above into a first draft in one pass. The full step-by-step version, with screenshots and the project setup, is at build a case chronology; the essentials are here.

1. Set up a Claude Project for the matter. Put the issue list (with one-sentence definitions), the party and witness list, and the citation format in the project instructions so every session uses them. The approach is described in building a reusable Claude Project for your practice.
2. Attach sources in batches by type. Pleadings first, then records, then correspondence, then transcripts. Batching by type lets you apply the type-specific extraction rules and makes QC easier.
3. Run the extraction prompt below on each batch. Ask for the table in the template's exact columns so batches merge cleanly.
4. Merge and deduplicate. Paste the batch tables back to Claude and ask it to merge rows describing the same event, keeping all cites, and to move rows with conflicting accounts into the contradictions list.
5. Verify. Every row you intend to cite gets its source opened and checked. Sample the rest. Resolve or confirm every DISPUTED row with a human read of both sources.
6. Keep it current. Each new production or transcript is a new batch through the same prompt, merged into the master.

Extraction prompt

You are assisting a litigation team building a case chronology in [MATTER]. We represent [PARTY]. Attached is a batch of [SOURCE TYPE: pleadings / records / emails / transcripts].

Issue list: [ISSUE 1: definition]; [ISSUE 2: definition]; [ISSUE 3: definition].
Parties and witnesses: [LIST].

Extract every dated event that bears on any listed issue into a table with exactly these columns:
Date/time (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM) | Precision | Event | Source and pin cite | Source type | People | Issues | Status | Notes

Rules:
1. One event per row. A document describing several events yields several rows.
2. Every row needs a pin cite a reader can open in under a minute: Bates and page for documents, page:line for transcripts, paragraph number for pleadings, date and sender for emails without Bates numbers. If you cannot give a pin cite, do not create the row; list the item under "Could not cite" after the table.
3. Precision must be one of: Exact, Date only, Approximate (state basis), Inferred (state basis). Never present an approximate date as exact.
4. Event descriptions are neutral, one sentence, no characterization.
5. Where the event date differs from the document date, use the event date and note the document date in Notes.
6. Status: UNDISPUTED only if the pleadings show an admission or two independent sources agree; DISPUTED if sources conflict; otherwise UNVERIFIED.
7. If this batch conflicts with any fact in the master chronology I paste below, create a row for this batch's version, mark both DISPUTED, and add an entry to a "Contradictions" table with: event, version A and source, version B and source.
8. Undated events relevant to an issue go in a separate "Undated" list with source cites.

[Paste current master chronology here, or "none yet".]

Common Drafting Mistakes

• Summarizing documents instead of extracting events. "Email from Okafor re: lighting" is a document index entry. "Okafor requested repair of the bay 6 light fixture" is a chronology entry.
• Mixing argument into the event column. It feels efficient and it poisons the table for every later use, including the neutral statement of facts a court expects.
• Letting the AI resolve conflicts. A model asked for a clean timeline will produce one. Instruct it to preserve conflicts and route them to the contradictions list, as the prompt above does.
• Losing the cite on merge. When two rows merge, every cite survives. A row that cites a document and a transcript is stronger than either alone.
• Treating the chronology as done. It is a living document until judgment. Assign someone to run each new production through it.

For firms in high-volume fact practices, the same chronology discipline serves as intake structure: see Claude for personal injury practices and the broader Claude for litigation page. Deadlines that surface during chronology work should go straight to the calendar; the routine is in extract and calendar deadlines.