Back to Details

deposition-prep

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/deposition-prep

/deposition-prep

  1. Load 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    → case theory, key facts.
  2. Follow the workflow and reference below.
  3. Pull docs authored by / mentioning witness from eDiscovery platform.
  4. Build outline: background, key docs, topics tied to theory, impeachment material.
  1. 加载
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    → 案件理论、关键事实。
  2. 遵循下方工作流程及参考内容。
  3. 从eDiscovery平台调取由证人撰写/提及证人的文档。
  4. 构建提纲：背景信息、关键文档、与案件理论关联的议题、弹劾证据。

Deposition Prep

作证准备

Witness statements for England & Wales — PD 57AC

英格兰及威尔士地区的证人陈述——PD 57AC规则

If the user's jurisdiction includes England & Wales and they're asking for a trial witness statement for the Business & Property Courts (or any CPR-governed proceeding), PD 57AC applies. The statement must be in the witness's own words, must not contain argument, must identify the documents the witness used to refresh their memory, and must carry the required confirmation of compliance and the legal representative's certificate.
Drafting a narrative "as the witness" from a chronology, document set, or your account of the case is exactly what PD 57AC was designed to prevent. Courts are actively sanctioning AI-assisted witness statement drafting. If you ask me to do it, I won't.
What I WILL do: prepare question prompts to elicit the witness's actual recollection; capture and organize what the witness says (their words, not mine); generate the list of documents they were shown; run a PD 57AC compliance checklist against a statement they've drafted; draft the solicitor's certificate of compliance. I help you get the witness's evidence into the statement. I don't write the evidence.
For US depositions, declarations, and affidavits: different rules, but the same discipline applies. A declaration in the declarant's voice that the declarant didn't write is a credibility problem at best.
如果用户所在司法辖区包含英格兰及威尔士，且其要求为商事与财产法院（或任何受CPR管辖的程序）准备庭审证人陈述，则需遵循PD 57AC规则。陈述必须使用证人本人的措辞，不得包含辩论内容，必须明确证人用于恢复记忆的文档，并附带所需的合规确认书及法律代表证明。
根据时间线、文档集或你对案件的描述，以“证人视角”撰写叙事性陈述，正是PD 57AC规则旨在禁止的行为。 法院正积极制裁AI辅助撰写证人陈述的行为。若你要求我这么做，我将拒绝。
我可以做的是：准备问题引导证人回忆真实情况；记录并整理证人的陈述内容（使用其本人措辞，而非我的）；生成证人查阅过的文档清单；针对证人起草的陈述运行PD 57AC合规检查清单；起草律师合规证明。我会协助你将证人的证言纳入陈述，而非代笔撰写证言。
对于美国的作证、声明及宣誓书：规则有所不同，但需遵循同样的原则。以声明人语气撰写但并非其本人所写的声明，往好里说是可信度问题。

Destination check

输出对象核查

Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a counterparty, "everyone"), ask whether it's inside the privilege circle. Public channels, company-wide lists, counterparty/opposing counsel, vendors, and clients (for work product) waive the protection. When the destination looks outside the circle, flag it and offer (a) the privileged version for legal only, (b) a sanitized version for the broader channel, or (c) both — don't silently apply a privileged header and then help paste it somewhere the header won't protect it. See the canonical 
## Shared guardrails → Destination check
in this plugin's CLAUDE.md.
在生成输出内容前，需核查接收对象。若用户指定了接收对象（如频道、分发列表、对方当事人、“所有人”），需确认其是否处于特权保护圈（privilege circle）内。公开频道、全公司列表、对方当事人/对方律师、供应商及客户（针对工作成果）会导致特权保护失效。若接收对象看似在特权圈外，需进行标记并提供以下选项：(a) 仅供法务人员查看的特权版本，(b) 适用于更广泛渠道的脱敏版本，(c) 同时提供上述两个版本——不得静默添加特权页眉后协助粘贴至页眉无法提供保护的渠道。详见本插件CLAUDE.md中的标准章节
## Shared guardrails → Destination check
。

Purpose

目的

A depo outline is a map: background → lock in the good facts → confront with the bad ones → box in on the theory. This skill builds the map from the documents and the case theory.
作证提纲如同一份路线图：背景信息→锁定有利事实→直面不利事实→紧扣案件理论。本技能将基于文档及案件理论生成这份路线图。

Record fidelity — quotes and pinpoints

记录准确性——引用与精准标注

Two rules that govern every citation and every quotation pulled from the record into this outline. Canonical statement lives in the plugin's 
CLAUDE.md
shared guardrails; repeated here because an impeachment confrontation built on a misquoted prior statement or a misgrounded transcript cite collapses the impeachment.
Verbatim quotes from the record must be verbatim. Never put quotation marks around words attributed to opposing counsel, the witness, another deponent, the court, or any record document unless you have the exact passage in front of you and can cite to it. When you want to characterize what someone said but can't find the exact words:
  • Paraphrase without quotation marks, attributing clearly: "Witness previously testified that X 
    [verify against record — Tr. p. __]
    ."
  • Mark the placeholder: 
    [verify exact quote — record cite pending]
  • Never fill the gap. An invented prior statement destroys the impeachment the moment the witness disavows it and the transcript doesn't back you up. Every 
    [verify exact quote]
    must be flagged in the reviewer note.
Pinpoint cites must support the whole proposition. If an impeachment point is "the witness said X, Y, and Z on [date]," verify the pinpoint cite supports X AND Y AND Z. If it only supports Z, split the cite — "said X (Tr. p. 10), Y (Tr. p. 12), Z (Tr. p. 15)" — or narrow the proposition. A cite that supports part of an impeachment is the failure mode where opposing counsel asks the witness to read more of the surrounding transcript and your confrontation falls apart.
以下两条规则适用于所有从记录中提取至本提纲的引用及引述。标准说明见插件CLAUDE.md中的共享防护规则；在此重复强调，因为若弹劾质证基于错误引用的先前陈述或标注错误的笔录，则整个质证环节会直接失效。
从记录中提取的逐字引述必须完全准确。 除非你能看到确切文本并可标注出处，否则不得将引号用于归属于对方律师、证人、其他作证者、法院或任何记录文档的措辞。若你想表述某人的言论但无法找到确切措辞：
  • 不加引号进行转述，并明确归属：“证人此前作证称X 
    [需核对记录——笔录第__页]
    。”
  • 标记占位符： 
    [需核实确切引述——记录出处待补充]
  • 不得自行填补空白。 虚构的先前陈述会在证人否认且笔录无法佐证时直接摧毁弹劾效果。所有
    [需核实确切引述]
    标记必须在审核备注中明确标出。
精准标注必须支撑整个主张。 若弹劾点为“证人在[日期]称X、Y、Z”，需确认精准标注同时支撑X、Y、Z三点。若仅支撑Z点，则拆分标注——“称X（笔录第10页）、Y（笔录第12页）、Z（笔录第15页）”——或缩小主张范围。仅支撑部分弹劾内容的标注会导致对方律师要求证人阅读更多上下文笔录，从而使你的质证环节崩溃。

Oral calibration

口头适配

A depo outline is read aloud in real time. That's oral advocacy, not written. It means:
  • Pick the 3-4 topics that actually matter. Don't try to cover everything — a 200-question outline on a 4-hour depo makes the lawyer skim, and skimming is how lines of questioning get lost mid-sequence.
  • Lead with your strongest confrontation. The witness is freshest at the start, and the transcript's opening pages are the ones a judge or jury is most likely to see.
  • For adverse witnesses: the tightest questions go in the tightest sequences. Everything else is scaffolding.
  • If you're preparing a rebuttal closing after the depo, the calibration is stricter still — the tribunal remembers the first two minutes and the last two.
"Too thorough" for oral work reads as unfocused. If the outline is long because the record is deep, say so and flag where the lawyer should collapse.
作证提纲需实时口头宣读，这属于口头辩护而非书面写作。这意味着：
  • 挑选3-4个真正关键的议题。切勿试图覆盖所有内容——4小时作证环节使用200个问题的提纲会让律师仓促浏览，而仓促浏览会导致提问线索在过程中丢失。
  • 以最强有力的质证内容开场。证人在开场时状态最佳，且笔录的开头几页是法官或陪审团最可能关注的部分。
  • 针对不利证人：最严谨的问题需按最紧凑的顺序排列。其他内容均为辅助框架。
  • 若你在作证后准备反驳结案陈词，适配要求会更严格——裁判庭只会记得开头和结尾的两分钟内容。
对于口头工作而言，“过于详尽”会显得缺乏焦点。若因记录内容庞大导致提纲过长，需明确说明并标记律师应精简的部分。

Load context

加载上下文

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
→ case theory (theory, pivot fact, key facts for/against), eDiscovery platform.
Conflicts gate — unbypassable. Before building an outline, check 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml
for the matter slug. If the matter is not in 
_log.yaml
, refuse and route:
"I don't see [matter slug] in the matter log. Run 
/litigation-legal:matter-intake
first so the conflicts check runs and the matter workspace is set up. I won't build a deposition outline on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate."
Do not proceed on an unintaken matter. Intake is what runs conflicts and writes the 
_log.yaml
row this skill reads from.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
→ 案件理论（核心理论、关键转折事实、对我方有利/不利的关键事实）、eDiscovery平台。
冲突核查——不可绕过。 在构建提纲前，需查看
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml
中的案件标识（matter slug）。若案件未列入
_log.yaml
，需拒绝操作并引导：
“我在案件日志中未找到[案件标识]。请先运行
/litigation-legal:matter-intake
以完成冲突核查并设置案件工作区。我不会为未完成录入的案件构建作证提纲——冲突核查是必经环节。”
不得为未录入的案件继续操作。案件录入流程会完成冲突核查并生成本技能所需的
_log.yaml
条目。

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Who is this witness?

步骤1：明确证人身份

  • Name, role, relationship to the case
  • Why are we deposing them — what do we need from this witness?
The "why" connects to the theory. If the witness can establish the pivot fact, that's the centerpiece of the outline.
  • 姓名、职位、与案件的关联
  • 我方为何对该证人取证——需从该证人处获取什么信息？
“为何取证”需与案件理论关联。若该证人可证明关键转折事实，则此为提纲的核心部分。

Step 1a: Witness posture — branch before drafting questions

步骤1a：证人立场——起草问题前先分支处理

Prep structure differs by posture. Identify the witness posture before writing a single question:
  • Adverse / hostile — cross-examination style: closed, leading, one fact at a time. Build the box.
  • Friendly / your own — direct-examination style: open questions that let the witness tell the story. Closed leading questions with your own witness are usually improper and undercut credibility with the factfinder.
  • Neutral third-party — mix; often open to get the story, closed to pin specifics.
  • Corporate representative (30(b)(6) or state equivalent) — topic designation, binding-the-entity rules, and the witness's personal-knowledge vs. corporate-knowledge distinction all have distinct rules. Research the applicable deposition rule for the forum and the 30(b)(6) / state-equivalent procedure. Confirm: what topics were designated, who was produced, scope of binding testimony.
Research the applicable deposition rules for the forum and witness type (FRCP 30 / state equivalent, local rules, judge's standing orders on depositions). Cite primary sources. Don't apply a one-size prep structure — the question form, the approach to documents, and the use of impeachment material all depend on posture.
No silent supplement. If a research query to the configured legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, Trellis, Descrybe, or firm platform) returns few or no results for the forum's deposition rules or a cite you need for impeachment, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [rule / authority]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged 
[web search — verify]
and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) leave the 
[UNCERTAIN]
marker and stop here. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources; the skill does not decide for them.
Source attribution. Tag every rule reference, case cite, and authority in the outline with where it came from: 
[Westlaw]
, 
[CourtListener]
, 
[Trellis]
, 
[Descrybe]
, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector; 
[web search — verify]
for web-search citations; 
[model knowledge — verify]
for citations recalled from training data; 
[user provided]
for citations the partner or senior associate supplied. Document citations (Bates, production numbers) retain their native source. Citations tagged 
verify
carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked before the deposition. Never strip or collapse the tags.
准备结构因证人立场而异。在起草任何问题前，需先明确证人立场：
  • 不利/敌意证人——交叉质证风格：封闭式、诱导式、每次聚焦一个事实。构建逻辑闭环。
  • 友好/己方证人——直接质证风格：开放式问题，让证人讲述完整故事。对己方证人使用封闭式诱导问题通常不合规，且会削弱事实裁决者对证人的信任。
  • 中立第三方证人——混合风格：通常先以开放式问题获取完整故事，再以封闭式问题锁定细节。
  • 公司代表（FRCP 30(b)(6)或州级等效规则）——议题指定、约束实体规则、证人个人认知与公司认知的区分均有明确规则。需研究适用于相关司法辖区的取证规则及30(b)(6)/州级等效程序。确认：指定了哪些议题、谁作为代表出庭、约束性证言的范围。
研究适用于司法辖区及证人类型的取证规则（FRCP 30/州级等效规则、当地规则、法官关于取证的常规命令）。引用原始来源。切勿采用通用准备结构——问题形式、文档处理方式及弹劾证据的使用均取决于证人立场。
不得静默补充内容。 若向配置的法律研究工具（Westlaw、CourtListener、Trellis、Descrybe或律所平台）发起的研究查询返回的辖区取证规则或所需弹劾出处结果极少或无结果，需报告已找到的内容并停止操作。不得未经询问就通过网络搜索或模型知识填补空白。应说明：“从[工具]搜索到[N]条结果。[规则/权威依据]的覆盖范围较窄。可选方案：(1) 扩大搜索查询范围，(2) 尝试其他研究工具，(3) 进行网络搜索——结果将标记为
[网络搜索——需核实]
，且在依赖前需与原始来源核对，(4) 保留
[UNCERTAIN]
标记并停止操作。你希望选择哪种方案？” 是否接受低可信度来源由律师决定，本技能不得自行决策。
来源归属。 提纲中的每一条规则引用、案例出处及权威依据均需标记来源：从法律研究连接器获取的引用标记为
[Westlaw]
、
[CourtListener]
、
[Trellis]
、
[Descrybe]
或MCP工具名称；网络搜索获取的引用标记为
[网络搜索——需核实]
；从训练数据中召回的引用标记为
[模型知识——需核实]
；合伙人或资深律师提供的引用标记为
[用户提供]
。文档引用（Bates编号、产出编号）保留其原始来源。标记为“需核实”的引用存在更高的伪造风险，需在取证前核对。不得删除或合并标记。

Step 2: Pull their documents

步骤2：调取证人相关文档

From the eDiscovery platform (Everlaw/Relativity/DISCO if connected):
  • Documents authored by witness
  • Documents sent to or from witness
  • Documents mentioning witness by name
  • Calendar entries and meeting notes with witness present
Organize by date. Flag the hot docs — the ones that matter most for the theory.
从eDiscovery平台（若已连接Everlaw/Relativity/DISCO）调取：
  • 证人撰写的文档
  • 发送给/来自证人的文档
  • 提及证人姓名的文档
  • 证人参与的日历条目及会议纪要
按日期整理。标记关键文档——即对案件理论最重要的文档。

Step 3: Build topics

步骤3：构建议题

Each topic is a thing you want to establish or explore. Organize around the theory:
Background (always first — lock in uncontroversial facts before the witness is defensive):
  • Role, tenure, responsibilities
  • Reporting structure
  • How they interacted with the key players
Good facts (lock them in before confronting):
  • Facts from 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    → key facts for us, that this witness can establish
  • Documents that support our theory, authored or received by this witness
Bad facts (confront with documents):
  • Facts against us that this witness will be asked about anyway — get your version first
  • Documents that hurt — know how the witness will explain them
Impeachment (if hostile or if they contradict):
  • Prior inconsistent statements (from docs, prior testimony, declarations)
  • Documents that contradict what you expect them to say
The pivot fact:
  • The sequence of questions that establishes (or undermines) the fact the case turns on
  • This is the most carefully constructed section. Question form follows witness posture from Step 1a: tight closed leading on adverse, controlled open on friendly, mixed on neutral. Don't default to one pattern.
每个议题代表你希望确认或探索的内容。围绕案件理论整理：
背景信息（始终放在首位——在证人产生防御心理前锁定无争议事实）：
  • 职位、任期、职责
  • 汇报结构
  • 与关键参与者的互动方式
有利事实（在直面不利事实前先锁定）：
  • 来自
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    的内容→对我方有利且该证人可证明的关键事实
  • 支持我方理论且由证人撰写/接收的文档
不利事实（结合文档直面）：
  • 对我方不利且对方必然会询问证人的事实——先获取我方版本的解释
  • 对我方不利的文档——了解证人会如何解释
弹劾证据（针对敌意证人或证人作出矛盾陈述时使用）：
  • 先前的不一致陈述（来自文档、先前证词、声明）
  • 与预期证人陈述矛盾的文档
关键转折事实：
  • 用于确认（或推翻）案件核心事实的问题序列
  • 这是最需精心构建的部分。问题形式需遵循步骤1a中的证人立场：针对不利证人采用紧凑的封闭式诱导问题，针对友好证人采用可控的开放式问题，针对中立证人采用混合形式。切勿默认单一模式。

Step 4: Write the outline

步骤4：撰写提纲

markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]
markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — 按插件配置## Outputs — 因角色而异；详见`## Who's using this`]

Deposition Outline: [Witness Name]

作证提纲：[证人姓名]

Date: [depo date] Witness role: [title, relationship to case] Witness posture: [adverse / friendly / neutral / 30(b)(6) or state equivalent] — drives question form Applicable deposition rules: [FRCP 30 / state rule / local rule / standing order — with pinpoint cites] 
[UNCERTAIN — verify currency]
Why we're taking this depo: [one sentence — the goal] Theory connection: [how this witness fits the case theory]
日期： [作证日期] 证人职位： [头衔、与案件的关联] 证人立场： [不利/友好/中立/30(b)(6)或州级等效规则] — 决定问题形式 适用取证规则： [FRCP 30/州级规则/当地规则/常规命令——含精准标注] 
[UNCERTAIN — 需核实时效性]
取证目的： [一句话说明——核心目标] 与案件理论的关联： [该证人如何契合案件理论]

I. Background

I. 背景信息

[Questions — closed, one fact each. Lock in the uncontroversial stuff.]
[问题——封闭式，每次聚焦一个事实。锁定无争议内容。]

II. [Good fact topic]

II. [有利事实议题]

Goal: Establish [fact] for use at summary judgment / trial.
Documents:
  • [Bates] — [description] — [why it matters]
Questions: [The sequence. Each question closed. Build to the admission.]
目标： 确认[事实]，供简易判决/庭审使用。
相关文档：
  • [Bates编号] — [描述] — [重要性]
问题： [问题序列。每个问题为封闭式。逐步引导证人承认。]

III. [Bad fact topic]

III. [不利事实议题]

Goal: Get the witness's explanation of [bad fact] on our terms before they're prepped for trial.
[Same structure]
目标： 在证人接受庭审准备前，按我方逻辑获取其对[不利事实]的解释。
[相同结构]

IV. Impeachment material (use if needed)

IV. 弹劾证据（必要时使用）

[Prior statements / documents to confront with, if the witness contradicts]
[用于质证的先前陈述/文档，若证人作出矛盾陈述则使用]

V. [Pivot fact sequence]

V. [关键转折事实问题序列]

Goal: [The thing the case turns on]
[This is the tightest section. Every question is a yes/no. Every question establishes one fact. Build the box.]
目标： [案件核心诉求]
[此部分最为紧凑。每个问题均为是非题。每个问题确认一个事实。构建逻辑闭环。]

Exhibit list

证物清单

#BatesDescriptionUsed in section
编号Bates编号描述适用章节

Marker discipline

标记规范

Use inline while building and reviewing:
  • [VERIFY: factual assertion]
    — any fact not confirmed against the record
  • [UNCERTAIN: legal proposition]
    — any legal point (rule, deadline, scope-of-questioning limit) not confirmed against current authority
  • [CITE NEEDED: specific cite]
    — record or authority cite pending
在构建及审核过程中使用以下行内标记：
  • [VERIFY: 事实主张]
    — 任何未通过记录确认的事实
  • [UNCERTAIN: 法律主张]
    — 任何未通过当前权威依据确认的法律要点（规则、期限、提问范围限制）
  • [CITE NEEDED: 具体出处]
    — 待补充的记录或权威依据出处

Notes for the attorney

给律师的备注

  • [Anything the outline doesn't capture — witness demeanor notes, strategic calls to make in the moment]
Privileged / work-product material. This outline is built from case materials and work product and inherits their protection status. Keep it in the privileged-materials folder, mark it appropriately, and make any distribution decision (co-counsel, client, experts) deliberately — distribution outside the privilege circle can waive protection.
Cite check any authority relied on. Rule citations (FRCP 30, state equivalents, local rules, standing orders) and any case law pulled into the outline were generated by an AI model. Verify each against Westlaw, CourtListener, or your research platform — confirm currency and scope before using at the deposition. Source tags on each citation (e.g., 
[Westlaw]
, 
[web search — verify]
) show where the cite came from; 
verify
tags carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first.
undefined
  • [提纲未涵盖的内容——证人举止备注、需临场作出的策略决策]
特权/工作成果材料。 本提纲基于案件材料及工作成果构建，继承其保护状态。请将其存放在特权材料文件夹中，进行适当标记，并审慎决定分发对象（合作律师、客户、专家）——向特权圈外分发可能导致特权保护失效。
核对所有依赖的权威依据。 提纲中的规则引用（FRCP 30、州级等效规则、当地规则、常规命令）及任何案例法均由AI模型生成。需通过Westlaw、CourtListener或你的研究平台逐一核实——在取证前确认时效性及适用范围。每个引用的来源标签（如
[Westlaw]
、
[网络搜索——需核实]
）显示其出处；标记“需核实”的引用伪造风险更高，应优先核对。
undefined

What this skill does not do

本技能不支持的操作

  • Take the deposition. The outline is a map; the attorney drives.
  • Predict what the witness will say. It prepares for likely answers, but witnesses surprise.
  • Decide what to ask on the fly. Follow-ups are the attorney's judgment in the room.
  • 代为取证。提纲仅为路线图，律师主导整个过程。
  • 预测证人的陈述内容。本技能仅为可能的回答做准备，但证人可能会给出意外答复。
  • 临场决定提问内容。后续问题需由律师根据现场情况判断。