ca-discovery-verification
Drafts California Superior Court discovery verification pages under CCP §§ 2030.250 and 2031.250 with proper CCP § 2015.5 perjury declarations. Trigger when the user needs a verification page for interrogatory or inspection/RPD responses, mentions California discovery verification, party vs. attorney signing, information-and-belief clauses, or fixing unverified responses. CA Superior Court only — not federal.
Best use case
ca-discovery-verification is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Drafts California Superior Court discovery verification pages under CCP §§ 2030.250 and 2031.250 with proper CCP § 2015.5 perjury declarations. Trigger when the user needs a verification page for interrogatory or inspection/RPD responses, mentions California discovery verification, party vs. attorney signing, information-and-belief clauses, or fixing unverified responses. CA Superior Court only — not federal.
Teams using ca-discovery-verification should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/ca-discovery-verification/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How ca-discovery-verification Compares
| Feature / Agent | ca-discovery-verification | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Drafts California Superior Court discovery verification pages under CCP §§ 2030.250 and 2031.250 with proper CCP § 2015.5 perjury declarations. Trigger when the user needs a verification page for interrogatory or inspection/RPD responses, mentions California discovery verification, party vs. attorney signing, information-and-belief clauses, or fixing unverified responses. CA Superior Court only — not federal.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# California Discovery Verification
Produces correctly formatted CA verification pages with proper signer capacity, knowledge basis, and CCP § 2015.5 perjury declaration. Unverified responses are treated as no response — the responding party waives objections and faces motions to compel (*Appleton v. Superior Court* (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632 [VERIFY]).
## Quick Start
1. Gather intake details (see Pre-Draft Intake)
2. Select verification type by discovery device
3. Select knowledge basis clause
4. Draft verification from template
5. Run quality audit
6. Confirm alignment with user
## Pre-Draft Intake
Gather before drafting (apply labeled defaults if user says "use defaults" or "just draft"):
| Field | Details | Default |
|---|---|---|
| Discovery device | Interrogatories (Form/Special) or inspection demand/RPD | Interrogatory |
| Exact response title | Must match verbatim on verification | — |
| Caption info | Court name, case number, party names | — |
| Responding party type | Individual or entity (corp, LLC, partnership) | Individual |
| Signer identity | Legal name, title/role, authority basis (entities) | — |
| Knowledge basis | Personal knowledge only, or information and belief | Info & belief |
| Execution details | Date, city, state | — |
> Do not draft verification for responses that have not been finalized.
## Step 1: Select Verification Type
| Device | Statute |
|---|---|
| Interrogatories (Form/Special) | CCP § 2030.250 |
| Inspection demand / RPD | CCP § 2031.250 |
| Federal court | Stop — use FRCP 33/34 + 28 U.S.C. § 1746 [VERIFY] |
## Step 2: Select Knowledge Basis
- **Personal knowledge only**: "The matters stated in the foregoing responses are true of my own knowledge."
- **Information and belief** (signer relied on records, employees, or collected info): "The matters stated in the foregoing responses are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true."
## Step 3: Draft Verification
### Individual Template
```text
[CAPTION BLOCK]
VERIFICATION OF [PARTY NAME] TO [EXACT RESPONSE TITLE]
I am the [plaintiff/defendant] in this action. I have read the foregoing responses and know the contents thereof.
[KNOWLEDGE BASIS CLAUSE]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on [DATE], at [CITY], [STATE].
___________________________
[SIGNER NAME]
[Plaintiff/Defendant]
```
### Entity Template
```text
[CAPTION BLOCK]
VERIFICATION OF [ENTITY NAME] TO [EXACT RESPONSE TITLE]
I am the [TITLE] of [ENTITY NAME], a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf. I have read the foregoing responses and know the contents thereof.
[KNOWLEDGE BASIS CLAUSE]
[OPTIONAL: "I am informed by the employees and records of [ENTITY NAME] regarding the matters stated."]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on [DATE], at [CITY], [STATE].
[ENTITY NAME]
By: _______________________
[SIGNER NAME]
Its: [TITLE]
```
Templates apply to both interrogatory and inspection/RPD verifications — select the matching type from Step 1.
## Post-Draft Alignment
After delivering, confirm with the user:
1. Verification title matches response document title exactly
2. Signer has proper authority (especially for entities)
3. Knowledge basis clause is appropriate
4. Execution location is correct (out-of-state may need adjustment)
## Quality Audit
Before finalizing, verify all of the following:
- [ ] Verification title matches response title verbatim
- [ ] Signer capacity stated; entity authorization language included
- [ ] CCP § 2015.5 perjury language verbatim: "under the laws of the State of California"
- [ ] Execution date and city/state present
- [ ] Signature block includes name and capacity
- [ ] Objections not verified (attorney signs for objections)
- [ ] Knowledge basis clause matches actual basis of responses
- [ ] Federal court not using CCP form
- [ ] No attorney signature where party signature required
## Pitfalls
- Title mismatch between verification and response invites motions to compel
- Attorney-signed verifications invalid except narrow CCP § 446 circumstances [VERIFY]
- "Personal knowledge" clause wrong if signer relied on records — use information-and-belief
- Never verify legal objections — attorney signs the response document for those
- Omitting "under the laws of the State of California" from perjury declaration is a fatal defect
- No notarization unless court order or client policy requires it
- Perjury exposure for false verifications (Cal. Penal Code § 118) [VERIFY]
- All case citations must be verified or flagged `[VERIFY]` — do not invent case law
- **Attorney review required** — all output must be reviewed by supervising counsel before signature or serviceRelated Skills
ediscovery-status-report
Generates a structured internal e-discovery status report tracking ESI from collection through attorney review. Covers custodian volumes, search term hit rates, review coding statistics, reviewer productivity, and projected timelines. Use when counsel, case managers, or clients need a progress report during the discovery phase of U.S. commercial litigation.
ediscovery-review-summary
Produces an internal U.S. litigation e-discovery status summary covering ESI collection, processing, search-term hits, review throughput, relevance and privilege rates, and completion forecasts. Triggers when the user requests an e-discovery status report, collection log summary, processing report, review statistics, coding report, search-term results, or privilege review summary.
e-discovery-protocol-agreement
Drafts court-ready ESI Protocol Agreements governing electronically stored information exchange in U.S. federal litigation. Covers FRCP 26(f)/34 compliance, FRE 502(d) clawback, TAR methodology, privilege logs, and production format specs. Use when drafting e-discovery stipulations, ESI protocols, meet-and-confer agreements, or joint discovery plans.
discovery-verification-audit
Produces an attorney-grade audit memorandum assessing whether written discovery responses are legally binding and timely. Use this skill when the user mentions verification audit, discovery verification, proof of service review, signature authority, perjury clause compliance, deadline computation, mailbox rule extensions, service defects, waiver risk, or motion-to-compel deadline analysis. Also trigger when the user references FRCP 33(b)(3) verification, CCP 2015.5, 28 U.S.C. 1746, attorney vs. party verification, or asks for help checking whether discovery responses are properly executed. Even if the user just says "check these responses for defects" or "is this verification valid," use this skill.
discovery-summary
Generates structured, citeable summaries of discovery documents (interrogatories, RFPs, RFAs, depositions, productions). Extracts admissions, inconsistencies, evidentiary gaps, and objections with precise source citations. Use when summarizing discovery responses, preparing for depositions, identifying discovery gaps, or building trial preparation materials.
discovery-summarization
Summarizes discovery documents (interrogatories, RFPs, RFAs, depositions, privilege logs) into structured attorney-ready memoranda. Triggers when the user needs to summarize discovery materials, identify key admissions, spot response gaps, cross-reference answers, or prepare a discovery status report.
discovery-plan
Drafts Joint Discovery Plans and Proposed Scheduling Orders under FRCP 26(f) or state equivalents. Analyzes pleadings, court requirements, and case complexity to produce discovery timelines, ESI protocols, privilege procedures, and scheduling deadlines. Use when preparing Rule 26(f) reports, proposed scheduling orders, case management plans, or discovery frameworks after meet-and-confer.
discovery-document-summaries
Summarizes discovery documents (depositions, emails, contracts, interrogatories, medical/financial records) with Bates citations, impeachment flags, timeline extraction, and privilege alerts. Use when summarizing produced documents during discovery or pre-trial phases of U.S. commercial litigation.
discovery-dispute-letter
Drafts discovery dispute resolution letters documenting meet-and-confer efforts and unresolved issues in U.S. litigation. Use when drafting meet-and-confer letters, discovery conference follow-ups, or pre-motion to compel correspondence during the discovery phase.
discovery-deficiency-tracker
Builds and maintains a litigation-grade discovery deficiency and meet-and-confer tracker for compulsion motion practice. Use this skill when the user mentions deficient discovery responses, motion to compel preparation, meet-and-confer tracking, FRCP 37 sanctions, discovery dispute charts, joint discovery letters, informal discovery conferences, deficiency logging, or California Separate Statements. Also trigger when the user references boilerplate objections, privilege log deficiencies, incomplete productions, evasive answers, discovery conferral documentation, or asks for help organizing disputes for court. Even if the user just says "track these discovery problems" or "help me build a compel motion," use this skill.
discovery-and-bill-of-particulars
Drafts a combined Demand for Discovery and Bill of Particulars for U.S. criminal or civil litigation. Extracts case details, identifies underspecified allegations or evidence gaps, and produces numbered discovery requests paired with particularization demands. Use after initial pleadings or return date when charges or claims lack specificity, evidence is opaque, or trial-preparation disclosures are incomplete. Trigger keywords include discovery demand, bill of particulars, motion to compel, FRCP 16, FRCP 26, FRCP 33, FRCP 34, FRCP 37, particularity.
decision-record-verification
Cross-references a judge's decision, court opinion, or final order against one or more hearing/trial/deposition transcripts to verify whether the record supports each finding. Produces strict dual-citation blocks with document names, page/line references, and verbatim quotes from both sources. Use when preparing appellate review, post-trial motions, record discrepancy audits, or transcript-based fact checks of judicial findings.