VERITAS
Sign inRequest demo
Sample report
This is a real Veritas report on a discovery motion with four citations. Two couldn’t be found or were misattributed, one is cited for a point the case doesn’t actually support, and one checks out completely. Try your own filing to see your real results.
Run on my filing
← Home
Verification Report

Motion to Compel Discovery (sample brief)

motion-to-compel.pdf
Not found in reporterDownload Verification Certificate
Risk score
92
Citations
4
Not located
2
Review recommended
1
Reviewer of record
Veritas surfaces candidates for attorney review. Findings are not legal conclusions. The decision to rely on any authority, and responsibility for every citation in a filing, remains with the filing attorney.

Citations · sorted by severity

Not found in reporter2
No opinion located at this citation in the reporter. Recommend verifying against the official reporter before filing.
Citation exists
Not located in reporter

No opinion is published at 547 F.4th 1182 in CourtListener's corpus. This is the typical signal for a hallucinated or mistyped citation; recommend verifying against the official reporter before filing.

Suggested attorney action
Confirm this citation in an official reporter before filing.
Citation exists
ConfirmedSource ↗

Located Upjohn Co. v. United States at 449 U.S. 383.

Subsequent treatment
ConfirmedSource ↗

Precedential status: Published. Cited by 3,220 opinions.

Pincite · quote
Quoted language not foundSource ↗

Quoted language was not located in the cited opinion. Recommend verifying the quotation against the source before filing.

Suggested attorney action
Verify the quotation against the source opinion before filing.
Proposition support
Opinion may not support this pointSource ↗

Cited authority may run contrary to the asserted proposition. Upjohn Co. v. United States is the leading Supreme Court case on the scope of the attorney-client privilege in the corporate context, specifically the rule that internal communications between corporate counsel and lower-level employees can be privileged. The opinion does not address discovery sanctions, willful evasion, or the prejudice requirement. Recommend re-verifying the proposition this citation is offered to support.

Suggested attorney action
Re-verify the proposition this citation is offered to support.
Quoted language
As filed
“discovery sanctions must be applied severely upon any showing of willful evasion, with no requirement that the moving party demonstrate prejudice.”
As found in the opinion
“the privilege exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice but also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable sound and informed advice.”
Match score: 12%·Review recommended
Review recommended1
Citation exists
ConfirmedSource ↗

Located Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at 509 U.S. 579.

Subsequent treatment
ConfirmedSource ↗

Precedential status: Published. Cited by 21,299 opinions.

Pincite · quote
Confirmed

No direct quotation attributed to this citation in the brief. Nothing to verify against the opinion text.

Proposition support
Review recommendedSource ↗

Support for the asserted proposition was not located in the cited opinion. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. addresses the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. It does not establish a presumption of reasonableness for discovery requests. Recommend substituting authority that actually addresses the discovery-proportionality standard.

Suggested attorney action
Confirm the cited authority supports this proposition.
Located — review wording0
None
Not assessed / pending0
None
Cleared1
Run it on your filing

See your own report in under a minute.

Upload a brief, motion, or memo. We'll check every cited authority against primary reporters, validate quoted language, and stress-test whether each citation actually supports the argument it's offered for.

Try it free