SearchLitigation & Dispute Resolution

Case Chronology

Case chronology software that turns a produced record into cited facts on one timeline, with the disputes marked and a lens on who knew each fact, and when.

Watch it work Book a walkthrough

Nine screens that turn a production into proof of notice ↓

Watch with transcript →

The problem

Weeks of reading to type each dated event, and the disputes found last

A paralegal reads the production and types each dated event into a spreadsheet with its document and page. The same email sits in five custodians' mailboxes and gets merged by eye. Then a new production or a fresh transcript arrives, and the sheet is behind again.

Which facts the other side contests is worked out late, by an associate already writing the summary judgment brief. Who knew what, and when, lives in the partner's head. Nobody can see at a glance that the chief executive had the email weeks before the recall.

Built forTrial partnersLitigation associatesLitigation paralegalsLitigation support teams

The Problem Today

Trial teams type the chronology by hand, one Bates number after another, and learn late what the other side disputes.

28%: of legal teams name chronologies a top discovery challenge published
300–500: documents a day, read and logged by one paralegal our estimate

Typed into a spreadsheet today

Emails
Records
Testimony
Pleadings

Behind after each productionA new production or transcript means the spreadsheet again
Who knew lives in one headNobody can see what the chief executive knew, and when

The Solution

Each dated event pulledEmails, records, pleadings and transcripts read for each dated event
Each fact linked to its pageCopies merged into one fact, cited to its Bates page or transcript line
Disputes and gaps markedEach fact set against the pleadings and testimony, both sides cited
Who knew what, whenPick a person and a date: only what the record proves they saw stays lit

Built-in controls

The partner approves each key fact and export
No fact enters the chronology without its cite
Knowledge counted only from the record

What You Get

Trial teams walk into summary judgment and cross-examination knowing each fact, its page and who saw it.

152–248: paralegal hours saved on a 9,400-document record our estimate

Undisputed facts, citedEach paragraph tied to particular parts of the record
Ready for each new productionNew documents matched to the facts already built
A cross built on proof of noticeWitness kits with the exhibits the witness saw

Nine screens, one record

What case chronology software builds from a 9,400-document record

One part of the chronology per screen, in the order a trial team meets them.

01Built overnight
A first read of the whole produced record into dated, cited facts
How it works
- 9,400 documents and six deposition transcripts read for dated events: emails, records, pleadings, testimony
- 2,317 dated events pulled, 1,388 merged as copies and 317 set aside as not material
- Each of the 612 facts linked to its page or line: 612 of 612 cited
- A panel tracks merges accepted, disputes confirmed and key facts approved
Litigation paralegalStarts the review on a first pass already built, with each fact's Bates number in place.
02Fact table
A fact table showing how many copies were merged into each line
How it works
- Date, issue, source cite, merged copies and who is proven to have seen it
- Tabs for the 27 key facts, all 612 and the 48 disputed
- Source mix at a glance: 341 from email, 128 business records, 97 testimony, 46 pleadings
- The paralegal accepts proposed merges; the partner approves the key facts
Litigation paralegalThe same email from five mailboxes stops being merged by eye, and each copy stays on file behind its fact.
03Source reader
A source reader opening each fact at its Bates page, passage marked
How it works
- The document with its Bates stamp and the cited words highlighted
- On the right, the facts drawn from it and who it proves saw it
- One key email shows 9 merged copies, from four custodians' mailboxes to two deposition exhibits
- Switches between an email, a transcript page and a board deck page
Senior associateChecks a quote against its page before it goes into a brief, without hunting for the Bates range.
04Fact timeline
A horizontal fact timeline, each card dated, cited and colored by issue
How it works
- The other side's documents above the line, testimony and others below
- Issue chips filter the cards: notice 7, warranty 1, lot change 5, testing 5, communications 3, recall 6
- A density strip places all 612 facts across the dates of the record
- A card opens its fact; a cite opens its page
Trial partnerSees the story of the case on one screen before a mediation, each card one click from its page.
05Who-knew-what-when lens
A who-knew-what-when lens that lights only what one person had seen
How it works
- For the chief executive (CEO) at March 14, 4 facts stay lit and 23 dim
- Proof comes only from sender, recipient, attendee, author, calendar owner or own testimony
- The email that proves his notice glows on the timeline
- A shaded band marks the days with no emails produced from his mailbox
Trial partnerKnows what the witness had seen, and when, with the page, before standing up to cross-examine him.
06Knowledge map
A knowledge map counting each witness's days of notice before the recall
How it works
- People down the side, weeks across, each dot a key fact the record proves they saw
- A marker sets each person's first proven notice that the switches fail
- Days of notice before the recall: 66 for the test engineer, 35 for the CEO, 3 for the client's procurement head
- The other side first knew at the heat-soak test; the client was told in writing 63 days later
Trial partnerPuts notice before the fact-finder as days per person, each proven from the record.
07Disputes
Each contested fact set beside the other side's position, both sides cited
How it works
- 564 undisputed and 48 disputed, set against pleadings, answers and testimony
- Our record and their position side by side, each with its cite
- The associate marks each one a genuine dispute, or not genuine with a reason
- 41 of 48 confirmed so far, 7 still to confirm
Senior associateKnows which facts are truly undisputed before the summary judgment brief is drafted.
08Gaps in the record
A gap check that finds silent stretches in a custodian's produced mailbox
How it works
- 14 days with 0 emails from the CEO's mailbox, against an average of 41 a day
- The gap opens the day after the email that proves his notice
- A quarantine log with no entries for 13 days, and a call with no notes produced
- Each gap drafts a meet-and-confer letter or a question to the client
Senior associateGoes into the meet-and-confer with the missing dates and the daily average in a drafted letter.
09Export for trial
A statement of undisputed facts with each paragraph cited to the record
How it works
- 38 paragraphs, drafted beside the trial chronology, a mediation timeline and a witness kit
- Disputed facts left out: 0 of 48 included
- 3 quotes marked for attorneys' eyes only kept out of client copies
- Nothing leaves the matter until the partner approves
Trial partnerApproves a statement for the summary judgment motion knowing each paragraph points to particular parts of the record.

The CEO's own reply, 26 days before the date he swore he first knew

Four findings from the first build, each tied to its page.

His reply to the hold recommendation

The vice president of quality recommended a hold on shipments and a word to the client. He answered 51 minutes later to keep shipping. At deposition he put his first knowledge 26 days after that reply.

Fourteen silent days in his mailbox

Nothing was produced from the CEO's mailbox for the fourteen days after that email, from a custodian who averages 41 a day.

In the room for item 6

The operations review minutes name the CEO as attending when switch returns came up. He testified he left before item 6. Both are cited; the associate rules on the dispute.

Written notice 160 days after the change

The supply agreement asks for 30 days' written notice of any material change. The first written notice reached the client 160 days after the alloy change, while 18,400 switches shipped in March.

Around the timeline

The litigation chronology after the first build: productions, letters, kits

The views a trial team reaches from a fact, a gap or an export.

Run log for a new production: 212 documents read, 31 dated events, no new facts, 31 of 31 quotes matched, 2 merges waiting for the paralegal — **A new production, read against the facts**The fourth production of 212 documents yields 31 dated events, 0 new facts and 2 new copies of the key email, waiting for the paralegal.

Fact card for the key email: issue, source, undisputed and key-fact chips, its Bates cite, 9 copies merged and the two people proven to have seen it — **One fact, opened**The key email as one fact: undisputed, cited to its Bates page, 9 documents merged, and proven seen by the CEO and the vice president of quality.

Lens results: four facts the record proves the CEO had seen, each with its proof, beside his testimony and 35 days of notice before the recall — **His testimony against the record**The four lit facts, each with how it is proven, beside his deposition line and 35 days of notice before the recall.

Meet-and-confer letter drafted from the mailbox gap, asking opposing counsel to confirm the collection or produce the emails, with approve and cancel buttons — **The letter for the missing days**Drafted from the mailbox gap, it asks the other side to confirm the collection or produce the emails, and goes to drafts only on a lawyer's approval.

Facts by issue with counts per issue, and claim element tables for fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty, each element supported or disputed — **Claim elements, fact by fact**Each element of fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty tied to the facts behind it, under the six issues and their counts.

Witness kit preview for the CEO's cross-examination: his testimony, three exhibits, a calendar entry and a mailbox gap, each with its cite — **A cross-examination kit**The CEO's kit: his testimony, the exhibits he saw, his calendar entry and the gap in his mailbox, each with its cite.

Six issues, 612 facts and the 48 the other side contests

Each fact carries one issue, so every screen filters the same way.

Issue	Facts	Disputed	Key facts
Notice and knowledge	96	14	7
Specification and warranty	118	7	1
Supplier lot change	74	5	5
Testing	109	9	5
Communications with the client	87	8	3
Recall and damages	128	5	6
All issues	612	48	27

Behind each cited fact

Six agents read, merge and cite; the lawyers decide each dispute

Each agent prepares; a lawyer decides what it hands over.

Event extractor

Reads each email, record, pleading and transcript and pulls out each dated event in its exact words.

Never guesses a date: an inferred one is marked about and flagged

Duplicate merger

Folds the same event seen in forwards, custodians and exhibits into one fact, keeping each source.

Never merges events whose dates or people differ
Proposes; the paralegal accepts

Source linker

Links each fact to its Bates page or transcript page and line, and checks the quote.

Never lets an uncited fact into the chronology

Dispute finder

Sets each fact against pleadings, answers, admissions and testimony, and finds gaps in the record.

Never decides which side is right

Knowledge mapper

Records who sent, received, attended, wrote or testified to each source, and drives the lens.

Never infers knowledge from a job title

Chronology writer

Drafts the trial chronology, the statement of undisputed facts and the witness kits, each line cited.

Never files, serves or sends anything

Before a trial team trusts case chronology software with its record

What is case chronology software?

Case chronology software builds the fact timeline a trial team works from. This solution reads the produced record, pulls each dated event, merges copies, links each fact to its Bates page or transcript line, marks what the other side disputes and shows who could have known each fact, and when.

How does it decide who knew what and when?

Only from the record: sender, recipient, an attendee named in minutes, author, calendar owner or the person's own testimony. A job title or a distribution list without its members does not count. Each lit fact shows how it is proven.

What happens when a new production or transcript arrives?

The agents read it against the facts already built. New events become facts, and new copies of known events wait as merges for the paralegal to accept.

Can it draft a statement of undisputed facts?

Yes. The chronology writer drafts it from the approved facts, each paragraph cited to particular parts of the record and disputed facts left out. The trial partner approves it before it leaves the matter.

How are protective-order designations handled?

They travel with each fact. Quotes from documents marked for attorneys' eyes only are kept out of client-facing copies.

How is it different from litigation timeline software that only draws the chart?

Many teams gather facts in a spreadsheet, then draw the timeline in a separate tool. Here the agents do the reading and citing, and the timeline, disputes and exports come from one set of cited facts.

Where do the produced documents live, and who sees each change?

Client and opposing-party documents are held in the matter's own workspace, and no model learns from them. The audit trail records who added, merged, linked, confirmed or approved each fact, people and agents alike.

Litigation & Dispute Resolution