# Draft Motion To Compel Source Code > Motion to compel production of disputed discovery responses involving source code and technical documents in a patent matter, with a supporting memorandum, counsel declaration, and proposed protective order. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/draft-motion-to-compel-source-code` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/draft-motion-to-compel-source-code` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-motion-to-compel-source-code/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-motion-to-compel-source-code --- # Skill: Draft Motion to Compel Production of Source Code and Technical Documents ## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable) - Confirm the motion is directed to disputed discovery responses, not a merits brief or purely administrative filing. - Identify whether the dispute concerns source code, technical documents, or both, because source-code disputes usually require narrower access, stronger confidentiality terms, and protocol-driven relief. - Determine whether the requested materials are tied to accused functionality, infringement contentions, invalidity positions, or claim construction, and draft the motion around that nexus. - If multiple disputed requests exist, separate them by request category before analysis so each request can be addressed on its own record. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Treating a general relevance argument as sufficient without tying each request to the accused functionality or other live issues in the case. - Failing to show a genuine meet-and-confer effort with dates, participants, positions, and the point at which impasse was reached. - Conflating distinct objections and answering them with one generic response instead of addressing privilege, relevance, proportionality, burden, and overbreadth separately. - Ignoring an inadequate privilege log, even where the withholding rationale is too vague to evaluate. - Seeking production of source code or technical materials without pairing the request with a practical confidentiality regime. - Drafting the motion as a narrative summary instead of a request-by-request application of the governing discovery rules. - Omitting a declaration that authenticates the conferral history and exhibits supporting the dispute. - Neglecting to align the requested relief with any applicable court-specific source-code protocol or standing order. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Federal discovery motion practice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), including the requirement to certify a good-faith effort to confer before filing. - Scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1): relevance to claims or defenses and proportionality to the needs of the case. - Protective-order authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), especially where source code, confidential technical information, or trade-secret concerns are implicated. - Privilege and withholding practice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5), including the need for a log sufficient to assess the basis for nonproduction. - Patent-litigation discovery norms: source code and technical documents are commonly discoverable when they bear on accused products, functionality, operation, or infringement theories, subject to protection against unnecessary disclosure. - Court-local source-code procedures, model protective orders, or standing orders, which may control inspection conditions, access limitations, copying restrictions, and review logistics. - When challenging privilege or withholding, ask for supplementation or in camera review where the log does not permit meaningful assessment. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Start with a short legal standard section that cites the governing rule provisions and any local source-code protocol actually applicable to the case. - For each disputed request, use the same internal sequence: - identify the request and the exact category of materials sought; - summarize the response and each objection asserted; - explain why the objection does not justify withholding; - connect the materials to infringement, accused functionality, claim construction, damages, validity, or another live issue; - state the relief sought for that request, including production, supplementation, log revision, or in camera review. - When privilege is asserted, separate true privileged communications from ordinary technical or business materials and challenge any log entry that is too generic to test the claim. - When burden or proportionality is asserted, show that the request is targeted, tied to specific functionality, and narrowed enough to be practical when paired with source-code safeguards. - When confidentiality is the real objection, answer it through a tailored protective order rather than conceding nonproduction. - If the dispute concerns both source code and non-code technical documents, analyze them separately because the access concerns and production mechanics often differ. - Use a declaration to authenticate the conferral process and attach correspondence, logs, or excerpts as exhibits where they materially support the motion. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Distinguish upstream technical design materials from downstream implementation or testing materials if the record treats them differently. - Distinguish source code access from ordinary document production, because source code commonly requires inspection protocols, controlled review space, and tighter use restrictions. - Distinguish requests directed to current product versions from requests spanning earlier versions if the dispute turns on timing, redesign, or version-specific functionality. - If the responses evolved over time, present the chronology of objections and supplementation so the court can see when the impasse hardened. - If the motion seeks both production and a confidentiality protocol, make clear that the protective order is ancillary relief supporting, not replacing, the discovery request. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Draft a motion to compel with an integrated memorandum: caption, introduction, governing standard, request-specific argument, and a conclusion that states the precise relief sought. - Include a counsel declaration that sets out the meet-and-confer history, identifies the key correspondence or conference dates, and authenticates any exhibits used to show the dispute. - Include a proposed protective order or source-code protocol that addresses access, inspection, copying, storage, logging, challenge procedures, and return or destruction at the end of the case. - Write the motion so the requested production is the primary relief and the protective order is the mechanism for making production workable. - Use clear, court-ready headings that organize by dispute category rather than by generic legal theory. - Close with a concrete request for relief that tracks the disputed categories, any supplementation sought, and any alternative relief such as in camera review.