Discovery Response Generator
When responding to any set of written discovery: interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission.
Responding to written discovery is high-volume, deadline-driven work where small mistakes carry real cost. Each interrogatory or document request needs the right objections, a substantive answer that does not waive those objections, and careful handling of anything privileged. Miss a proportionality objection or waive privilege through a loose answer, and you have narrowed your client's position before the case even reaches its merits.
Claude is a strong, cost-effective drafting partner here. Given the request set, your client's role, the governing rules, and a summary of what you know, it produces formatted responses with objections stated specifically for each request, a statement of whether anything is withheld on the basis of each objection to a document request, and substantive answers built only from the facts you supply. That gets a complete first draft on the page so your time goes to judgment calls.
What it produces is a draft to be verified, not a set ready to serve. Counsel must confirm every factual answer against the record, ensure no privileged material is described, calibrate objections to the specific requests, and supplement as discovery develops. The pages here are practice guidance, not legal advice, and the signing attorney remains responsible under the applicable rules.
The Prompt
Draft responses and objections to the discovery requests below. <requests> [PASTE THE REQUESTS] </requests> <available_facts> [WHAT YOU KNOW, WHAT DOCUMENTS EXIST, AND WHAT IS BEING WITHHELD AND WHY] </available_facts> We represent: [PLAINTIFF / DEFENDANT] Case type: [TYPE] Applicable rules: [FRCP / STATE RULES, AND ANY LOCAL RULES OR STANDING ORDERS ON OBJECTION FORMAT] Response deadline: [DATE] For each request: 1. State any objection with specificity, tied to the request's language (for example, explain why a particular time period or category is overbroad or not proportional). Do not use general or boilerplate objections, and avoid "to the extent" objections. 2. For each objection to a request for production, state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. 3. Provide a substantive response. "Subject to and without waiving" language is optional; note that some courts disfavor it. 4. For document requests, state what will be produced, by category or Bates range, and when. 5. For interrogatories, answer based only on <available_facts>. 6. Never describe privileged communications; note anything that belongs on a privilege log. Mark any factual answer I have not supplied as [CONFIRM WITH CLIENT]. If something I need is missing or ambiguous, say so instead of assuming. Do not invent facts, citations, or quotations; mark anything you are unsure of [VERIFY]. This is a draft for attorney review.
Example Output
A formatted set of responses with specific objections, a withholding statement for each production objection, substantive answers, and [CONFIRM WITH CLIENT] flags where facts are missing.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Morgan v. Delta Freight Co., No. 26-0917 (E.D. Tex.) INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all persons with knowledge of the maintenance history of the vehicle involved in the incident. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Defendant objects to the phrase "all persons with knowledge" as overbroad because, read literally, it would reach drivers, dispatchers, and outside vendors with no role in maintaining the subject vehicle. Defendant responds as to persons with knowledge of the subject vehicle's maintenance history: Carlos Mendez (Fleet Manager) and Tanya Brooks (Maintenance Technician), both contactable through undersigned counsel, have knowledge of the subject vehicle's maintenance history. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Produce all maintenance and inspection records for the subject vehicle from January 2024 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Defendant objects to the requested time period (January 2024 to present) as not proportional to the needs of the case, because the claims concern the vehicle's condition on the date of the incident. Defendant will produce responsive, non-privileged maintenance and inspection records for the subject vehicle for the twelve months preceding the incident, Bates DEF-000142 through DEF-000219, within 30 days of service of these responses. On the basis of this objection, Defendant is withholding records dated after the incident; no other responsive materials are being withheld. [NOTE: Verify Bates ranges, withholding statements, and factual answers against the file before serving.]
Tips
- •State objections with specificity; many courts treat general or boilerplate objections as waived.
- •Respond with the information you have now, and supplement as required when you learn more.
- •Coordinate document production numbering (Bates stamps) with your responses.
- •Check your court's local rules and standing orders on objection format.
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review; verify every citation, quotation, date and figure against the source before relying on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should I use this prompt in the discovery process?
Use it once you have the served request set and a working understanding of your client's facts and documents, typically as you build responses ahead of the deadline. It works for interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. Provide the governing rules so objections track the correct standard, whether federal or state.
Are these responses ready to serve as drafted?
No. Every substantive answer must be verified against the record, document references and Bates ranges confirmed, and objections tailored to the actual requests before service. The draft is a structural and boilerplate head start. The attorney who signs the responses is responsible for their accuracy and completeness under the applicable rules.
How do I get the most useful draft?
Be specific about your client's role, the governing rules, and the deadline, and give a candid summary of what you know and which documents exist. Flag any requests implicating privilege. Precise inputs produce calibrated objections and answers; vague inputs produce generic boilerplate you will have to rework heavily.
What accuracy and ethics issues should I watch for?
Discovery responses are verified and often signed under oath, so an unchecked factual answer is a serious problem; never let an AI draft introduce facts you have not confirmed. Guard against describing privileged material in an answer. Under ABA Formal Opinion 512, supervise the output and protect client confidentiality, and remember your obligations of candor and completeness run to the response itself.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.