A tested strategy for AI-drafted interrogatories

 A strategy for AI-drafted interrogatories

1. Create a PDF file containing the relevant court rules relating to discovery and interrogatories. In federal court, that would include the general rules of discovery and mandatory disclosures in FRCP Rule 26, the specific interrogatory rules of FRCP 33, and any relevant local rules. 

2. Make copies of your case's complaint and answer PDF files, as amended. Place the copies in a working folder.

3. Create a PDF file containing a brief description of the essential legal elements for each of the plaintiff's COA and the defendant's affirmative defenses. Include on-point excerpts from relevant court decisions.  The objective is to provide the AI chatbot an accurate working guide to the applicable legal and evidentiary issues. Pattern jury instructions are a good source to use if available.

4. Copy my "GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.PDF" and "CONSIDERATIONS.PDF" to your working folder.

5. Combine all of these files into a single PDF file named "DIRECTIONS.PDF"

This combined file PDF will be uploaded as an attachment to your chatbot prompt.

Enter the following PROMPT:

temperature = 0

Assume the role of experienced senior law clerk and follow the instructions in the attached file "DIRECTIONS.PDF." Draft 30 rule-compliant interrogatories for use as discovery in the pending litigation arising from the Complaint and Answer contained in the DIRECTIONS.PDF file.

Assume the enclosed statement of applicable legal principles is correct and authoritative for this jurisdiction. Write in a clear, concise, unambiguous, and professional business style without legalese or jargon. If you have any questions or uncertainty, please pause and ask for clarification.

When referencing the plaintiff or defendant, also include their proper name. Example: "Plaintiff, John Doe" or "Defendant XYZ, Inc." 

-- oOo --

Generated output using Claude - Raw & Unedited

Jeanne Flieger V. Eastern Suffolk Board Of Cooperational Educational Services Docket No. 13-CV-6282 (EDNY 2013)

1. Identify all witnesses not previously disclosed pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) who have knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Jeanne Flieger's employment, disabilities, requests for accommodation, the interactive process between the parties, and termination of Plaintiff Flieger's employment, as well as the defenses and denials of Defendant Eastern Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services ("BOCES"). For each witness, provide their full name, job title, last known address, and last known phone number, as well as a brief summary of their knowledge related to this case.

2. Identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things not previously produced that relate to Plaintiff Flieger's employment, disabilities, requests for accommodation, the interactive process, termination of employment, or Defendant BOCES's defenses and denials. For each, state the date, author, recipients, subject matter, and current location.

3. State all reasons why Defendant BOCES contends Plaintiff Flieger was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, identifying any "direct threat" Defendant BOCES alleges Plaintiff Flieger posed and the basis for that contention.

4. Describe in detail the "essential functions" of Plaintiff Flieger's job as a Teaching Assistant that Defendant BOCES contends Plaintiff Flieger could not perform with or without reasonable accommodation.

5. State the date(s) when Defendant BOCES first became aware of Plaintiff Flieger's disabilities and her need for accommodation related to those disabilities.

6. Identify each request for reasonable accommodation made by Plaintiff Flieger, including the date of each request, how it was conveyed to Defendant BOCES, and Defendant BOCES's response.

7. For each request for accommodation identified in response to the preceding interrogatory, state whether Defendant BOCES deemed the requested accommodation reasonable and the basis for that determination.

8. Describe all steps taken by Defendant BOCES to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff Flieger to identify potential reasonable accommodations.

9. Identify each potential reasonable accommodation, if any, that Defendant BOCES considered or discussed for Plaintiff Flieger, as well as the basis for determining whether each potential accommodation was reasonable.

10. If Defendant BOCES contends that reassignment to a vacant position was not a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff Flieger, state all reasons for that contention, identifying each vacant position that existed when Plaintiff Flieger requested accommodation.

11. If Defendant BOCES contends that reallocating or redistributing marginal job functions was not a reasonable accommodation, identify the specific job functions at issue and explain why reallocating or redistributing those functions was not reasonable.

12. If Defendant BOCES contends that modifying Plaintiff Flieger's work schedule was not a reasonable accommodation, identify the requested schedule modification and explain why it was not reasonable under the circumstances.

13. Identify any accommodations offered by Defendant BOCES to Plaintiff Flieger and state whether Plaintiff Flieger accepted or rejected each offered accommodation.

14. If Defendant BOCES claims that providing the accommodation(s) requested by Plaintiff Flieger would have caused an undue hardship, describe the proposed accommodation(s) and the specific undue hardship it would have caused to Defendant BOCES's operations.

15. Identify and describe in detail Defendant BOCES's policies, practices and procedures in effect from 2010 to present regarding requesting, considering, and providing reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

16. State whether Defendant BOCES had a procedure in place from 2010 to present that an employee was required to follow to request an accommodation for a disability, and if so, describe that procedure in detail.

17. Identify by name, title and dates of employment all employees of Defendant BOCES responsible for administering, implementing or making decisions regarding reasonable accommodation requests under the ADA from 2010 to present.

18. Describe any training provided to Defendant BOCES's management and supervisory personnel from 2010 to present regarding responsibilities and obligations under the ADA for providing reasonable accommodations.

19. Identify all other employees of Defendant BOCES from 2010 to present who requested accommodations for disabilities and state whether each request was granted or denied, as well as the accommodation requested.

20. State the date Plaintiff Flieger's employment ended with Defendant BOCES, whether she resigned, was terminated, or separated through some other means, and the reason(s) for the separation.

21. If Plaintiff Flieger's employment was terminated, identify the person(s) who made the decision to terminate and the stated reason(s) for termination at the time it occurred.

22. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger did not experience an adverse employment action because of her disability, state in detail all reasons for this contention.

23. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger's alleged disability did not substantially limit a major life activity, state the basis for this claim and identify the specific major life activities that Defendant BOCES alleges were not substantially limited.

24. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger did not have a disability covered by the ADA, state in detail all reasons for this contention.

25. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger failed to mitigate her damages, identify all potential comparable employment opportunities that Defendant BOCES alleges Plaintiff Flieger failed to pursue.

26. State whether Defendant BOCES has an in force disability anti-discrimination policy and if so, describe the policy and identify any personnel responsible for its implementation and enforcement.

27. If Defendant BOCES had knowledge of any potential discrimination or failure to accommodate Plaintiff Flieger because of her disabilities, describe the information or circumstances that provided Defendant BOCES such knowledge.

28. Identify any complaints, whether informal or formal, made by Plaintiff Flieger or other employees to Defendant BOCES regarding disability discrimination or failure to accommodate prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit.

29. Identify any disciplinary actions or performance issues related to Plaintiff Flieger's attendance, conduct or work performance prior to her requests for accommodation.

30. State the amount of alleged damages, including any claims for lost wages, benefits, emotional distress or other compensatory damages, that Plaintiff Flieger claims and describe how the amount was calculated.