Trial Designation Puller
Pull proposed deposition designations on your issues with page:line in/out points, verbatim anchors, and a colloquy-cleanup flag on every range.
What is an AI trial designation puller prompt?
It is a CITE prompt that asks an AI tool to extract specific items from deposition transcripts. Pull proposed deposition designations on your issues with page:line in/out points, verbatim anchors, and a colloquy-cleanup flag on every range. You fill in five fields; the Evidence block requires a page:line cite for every finding so a person can check each one against the record.
Sample prompt
Synthetic data
Synthetic example: The names, dates, case details, and issues below are fictional CasePrompts sample values, not client data or evidence from a real matter. They demonstrate the prompt format, not the accuracy of any AI model's output.
Preview the complete sample prompt
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting defense counsel in a premises liability matter, preparing trial designations. The attached document is the certified deposition transcript of Olivia Tran, store manager on duty at the time of the fall. The issues to designate on are: inspection schedule compliance; notice of the substance. INSTRUCTIONS: Identify every passage of testimony that substantively addresses the specified issues and propose it as a designation. For each proposed designation: 1. Give precise in and out points in page:line form, beginning at a question and ending at the completion of an answer. 2. Quote the first and last few words of the range verbatim so the boundaries can be verified instantly. 3. Flag any objections, colloquy, instructions, or sidebar discussion inside the range that will need cleanup or a ruling. 4. Note in one sentence what the designation establishes. Keep ranges tight — designate the exchange that proves the point, not the surrounding examination. TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows: ## Proposed designations | # | Issue | Range (page:line in – out) | Opens with… / ends with… (verbatim) | Colloquy flag | What it establishes | |---|---|---|---|---|---| ## Cleanup list | Range | What needs attention (objection / colloquy / instruction) | Cite | |---|---|---| EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: For every finding, cite page and line in the form `page:line` (e.g., 47:12–48:3) and quote the operative testimony verbatim. The in/out anchors must be verbatim transcript text. If an issue has no designable testimony, write "not found in the record" for that issue rather than stretching a range to cover it. Counter-designation strategy and admissibility are attorney calls — do not opine on them. Unless a section above specifies its own marker, write "not found in the record" wherever the provided record does not support a requested finding. Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge. The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources. A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Through the Civil / insurance defense lens
Prioritize plaintiff admissions bearing on comparative fault, prior injuries or claims, gaps and lapses in treatment, activities inconsistent with claimed limitations, and mitigation.
Through the Commercial litigation lens
Prioritize admissions about contract formation, performance and non-performance, notice given or not given, and damages quantification — anchored to the documents the witness was shown.
Through the Criminal defense lens
Prioritize inconsistencies among State witnesses, statements bearing on identification reliability and observation conditions, language suggesting suggestive procedures, and references to evidence or recordings not found in the production.
Through the Employment litigation lens
Prioritize testimony establishing decision-maker knowledge and timing, the stated reasons for each employment action, comparator treatment, and departures from written policy.
Through the Family law lens
Prioritize admissions about income, assets, and liabilities, statements about parenting time and conduct, and — where the record preserves it — tone: how something was said to a co-parent often matters as much as what was said.
Through the Medical malpractice — defense lens
Prioritize chart language documenting clinical reasoning and judgment calls, informed-consent discussions, patient non-compliance, and comorbidities bearing on outcome.
Through the Medical malpractice — plaintiff lens
Prioritize testimony and chart language bearing on the applicable standard of care, departures from protocols or orders, and admissions about what should have been done differently.
Through the Personal injury — plaintiff lens
Prioritize testimony establishing notice and fault, admissions about the mechanism of injury, and the human impact of the injuries — pain, limitations, and life disruption in the witness's own words.
Through the Probate & estate litigation lens
Prioritize statements about the decedent's intent, capacity, and dependence; who was present at execution; and how the fiduciary handled the assets — admissions about access and control often decide these cases.
Through the Prosecution lens
Prioritize corroboration across independent sources, spontaneous statements, and testimony establishing each element — and separately flag anything arguably favorable to the defense for disclosure review.
Through the Workers' compensation — claimant lens
Prioritize testimony establishing the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, prompt reporting, and employer knowledge — plus every statement about restrictions and ability to work.
Through the Workers' compensation — employer/carrier lens
Prioritize claimant admissions bearing on course and scope, late or inconsistent reporting, prior injuries or claims to the same body parts, and activities inconsistent with claimed restrictions.
AI output is a starting point, not work product. Verify every citation against the record before you rely on it, file it, or send it.
What you'll fill in
- 01Your role
- 02Case typee.g., "trucking liability," "first-party property," "medical malpractice"
- 03Witness / deponent namee.g., "Witness A" or "the treating physician"
- 04Their role in the casee.g., "plaintiff's accident reconstructionist"
- 05Key issue(s) — 1 to 3e.g., "vehicle speed at impact; brake maintenance; visibility"
Verification checklist
- Deposition transcript: open each cited page:line location and confirm it supports the finding. The prompt asks: “For every finding, cite page and line in the form page:line (e.g., 47:12–48:3) and quote the operative testimony verbatim.”
- Compare every verbatim quotation word for word with the source.
- Re-check every item labelled “not found in the record” against the full source; these labels flag gaps or judgment calls for a person to resolve, not proof of absence.
- A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Pro tip Run it per witness, then merge the tables — the colloquy flags become your pretrial-conference punch list.
Related verification workflow
Related templates
Admissions & Key Testimony Extractor
Pull every admission, damaging concession, and 'I don't know' on your key issues out of a transcript — with verbatim Q&A and page:line cites.
Contract Obligations Extractor
Inventory every obligation, deadline, notice requirement, and condition precedent in the contract — who owes what, triggered by what, with section cites.
Discovery Gap Finder
Flag every evasive, incomplete, or boilerplate-objection answer against what was actually asked — and walk away with your meet-and-confer list drafted.