Draft Response To Investigative Subpoena

---
name: draft-response-to-investigative-subpoena
task_id: antitrust-competition/draft-response-to-investigative-subpoena
description: Closes gaps in the three-deliverable structure, objection framework, sensitive document flagging, and complete privilege log format requirements for a government investigative subpoena response.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: CID Response Drafting (Three Deliverables)

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Treat the assignment as three coordinated products: a response letter, a privilege log, and a strategic advisory memo.
- Identify the governing government-investigation process first, then align the response deadline, objection mechanics, and any extension or modification requests to that process.
- Separate produced material from withheld or redacted material at the outset, and treat sensitive produced documents as a distinct advisory category, not as privileged material by default.
- If more than one custodian group, request category, time period, or testimony date is implicated, enumerate each one before analysis so the response remains request-specific.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Treating the response as a generic cover letter instead of a request-by-request legal response tied to the governing investigation authority.
- Omitting general objections, or stating objections in boilerplate form without linking them to particular requests, burden, scope, privilege, or procedural defects.
- Failing to distinguish withheld, redacted, and produced-but-sensitive documents in a way that supports downstream strategy.
- Using a privilege log that is too sparse to evaluate the claim, especially by omitting author, recipient(s), date, description, privilege basis, and withholding status.
- Collapsing business communications and legal communications into one bucket without applying the primary-purpose analysis.
- Overstating privilege for consultant materials without checking whether counsel engaged the consultant to assist legal advice.
- Ignoring preservation problems, deletion issues, or destruction instructions that may require immediate escalation.
- Missing oral testimony scheduling conflicts or treating them as an afterthought rather than a separate response issue.
- Drafting advisory content without concrete next steps, responsible roles, and timing anchors.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Use the applicable CID or investigative subpoena framework, including the statute, rule, or agency process governing service, objections, extensions, and motions to quash or modify.
- Tie any burden or proportionality objection to the applicable standard for relevance, reasonableness, and undue burden under the governing investigative authority and any parallel civil-discovery principles as appropriate.
- Apply the attorney-client privilege only where the communication sought or given legal advice; state the controlling privilege doctrine by name and authority, and do not assume confidentiality alone is enough.
- Apply the work-product doctrine where the material was prepared because of litigation or anticipated enforcement, and distinguish fact work product from opinion work product where that distinction matters.
- For dual-purpose documents, analyze whether obtaining or providing legal advice was the primary purpose, not whether counsel was merely copied.
- For consultant materials, assess whether the consultant was retained through counsel to assist legal advice, and whether the role supports extending protection under the consulting-counsel doctrine or analogous protection.
- Preserve a separate escalation track for spoliation, deletion, alteration, or preservation failures once an investigation was reasonably anticipated.
- For any legal proposition stated in the letter, memo, or log notes, cite the controlling authority by name and section, rule, or recognized doctrine.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
1. Response framework
   - State the governing investigative authority, the return date, any extension request history, and the status of any oral testimony date.
   - Provide general objections before request-specific responses.
   - For each request or category, state whether documents are being produced, withheld, redacted, or produced subject to objection.
   - Where an objection is based on burden or scope, identify the concrete source of the burden from the source documents rather than using conclusory language.

2. Privilege classification
   - Review each withheld or redacted item and classify it as attorney-client, work product, joint-defense/common-interest if supported, consultant-assisted legal advice, or another recognized protection.
   - For each item, ask whether the document’s primary purpose was legal advice, or whether it is primarily business material that merely references counsel.
   - For consultant-related entries, confirm the engagement path, the consultant’s role, and the relationship to counsel’s legal advice function.

3. Privilege log construction
   - Produce one log row per withheld or redacted document or communication.
   - Include a document control number, date, author, recipient(s), subject or description, privilege basis, and withholding status.
   - Make descriptions informative enough to test the claim without revealing the protected communication itself.
   - Distinguish full withholding from partial redaction so the reader can tell what was produced and what was withheld.

4. Proportionality and burden analysis
   - When the request universe is broad, compare the requested population, time period, or custodians against the investigation’s likely focus and the company’s relevant personnel footprint.
   - Link the burden objection to specific operational costs, review volume, data sources, or custodial spread identified in the source documents.
   - If the scope is defensible only with narrowing, propose a narrowing that preserves responsive core materials.

5. Strategic advisory memo
   - Identify sensitive produced documents separately from privileged withheld material.
   - Flag any production that may create strategic, business, or litigation risk even if it is being produced.
   - Address preservation, deletion, or destruction issues immediately and recommend escalation if there is any credible spoliation concern.
   - Address oral testimony strategy, including witness preparation, scheduling conflicts, and whether a modification request is needed.

6. Issue-specific timing
   - If the source set includes multiple deadlines, testimony dates, or rolling production tracks, run the analysis once per date or track rather than using a single blended pass.
   - If only one deadline or witness date exists, say so affirmatively and build the response around that single anchor.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Keep the response letter, privilege log, and advisory memo aligned on facts, dates, and request numbering.
- Ensure the letter references the same request categories that drive the privilege log and advisory memo.
- If a document is withheld for privilege but also shows a spoliation or preservation issue, treat those as separate analytical tracks.
- If a witness date conflicts with a schedule, evaluate the conflict in the response letter and the advisory memo together so the position is consistent.
- When a document is both operationally sensitive and potentially privileged, classify the privilege issue separately from the business-risk issue.

## 6. Output structure conventions
### Deliverable 1 — CID Response Letter
- Use a formal business-letter format with addressee, date, subject line, and clear reference to the governing investigative authority.
- Include a general objections section before individual responses.
- Address each request or category in a request-specific or category-specific format.
- Include any extension request, modification request, or testimony scheduling issue in the body where relevant.
- State privilege and burden objections with enough specificity to show what is being withheld or narrowed and why.

### Deliverable 2 — Privilege Log
- Use a table or equivalent tabular format.
- Include, at minimum: document number, date, author, recipient(s), subject or description, privilege basis, and withheld/redacted status.
- Add separate treatment for full withholding versus partial redaction.
- Use descriptions that are informative yet non-revealing.
- If multiple documents share a common basis, still ensure each entry remains individually traceable.

### Deliverable 3 — Strategic Advisory Memo
- Open with a concise framing of the posture and the key risks.
- Include a distinct section for sensitive produced documents that need strategic attention.
- Include a distinct section for preservation, deletion, or spoliation concerns if any exist.
- Include a distinct section for oral testimony strategy if testimony is requested or anticipated.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that uses an imperative verb, assigns the responsible role, and gives a timing anchor tied to the investigation or the nearest procedural milestone.