Noetic helps litigation teams prepare answers to interrogatories and responses to document requests. Write your own response and have Noetic evaluate it, or have Noetic generate a proposed answer for your review. You control the final response.
Every analysis and generated statement is evidence-based, with verifiable citations produced from searches across served documents and other evidence records in your system.
Historical answers and the Facts Database surface supporting facts and narratives alongside potentially problematic or contradictory information—including statements already served on opposing counsel.
For teams preparing responses, evaluating opposing counsel’s answers, and coordinating discovery across matters.
Both paths draw on prior served responses and the Facts Database built from historically available records. Noetic brings supporting facts, potential contradictions, and source citations to the question you are answering.
Prepare the answer in your own words. Noetic evaluates it against historical responses and the Facts Database, surfacing supporting information, potential conflicts, and recommendations.
You assess the findings and decide what to change.
Noetic generates a proposed response based on its evaluation of the question, historical answers, and relevant facts. Review that draft using the supporting and potentially contradictory information its tools provide.
You accept, revise, or reject the proposed wording.
Inspect the citations, weigh the supporting and conflicting information, and apply your judgment to the current matter. You decide the response’s content and approve the final answer.
Whether you write the draft or Noetic proposes it, your team receives the same basis for review: relevant facts and evidence, evaluation of the draft, and historical answer exemplars.
Documents relating to testing or inspection of asbestos production areas.
Request condensed for this walkthrough.Relevant facts with citations, supporting material, and potential contradictions or gaps—including statements already served on opposing counsel.
Provided by Fact Analyzer“ACME did not conduct any tests that were specific to asbestos being present in the production areas of our facilities.”View supporting source
That statement does not establish whether broader safety or industrial-hygiene inspection records exist or were searched.
Fact Analyzer identifies a coverage gap here; it finds no internal inconsistency among the supplied facts.
Evaluation of your own draft or a Noetic-generated proposal against prior answers and historical facts. Review potential issues and recommendations before deciding what to change.
Provided by Evaluate Draft“We object to this Interrogatory…”
The current request is a Request for Production. Evaluate Draft flags the mismatch and recommends correcting the reference.
If accurate, explain what was searched and whether responsive documents were located. Check that the search covers the request’s scope.
Counsel decides which edits are appropriate and supported.
Related prior responses with their original questions and source details. See what was said before and decide what fits the current request.
Provided by Prior Work MatchingThe prior interrogatory also concerned testing or inspection. Its answer supplies a starting point, while the current request’s scope still needs review.
View original question and answerIdentify if all report, test results or other information that is related to the testing or inspection of asbestos production areas.
Source answer · ExcerptACME did not conduct any tests that were specific to asbestos being present in the production areas of our facilities. Furthermore, we object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is ambiguous and overly broad.
Identify products that Defendant, any predecessor, or related entity at any time designed, manufactured, processed, sold, distributed, applied, installed, patented, specified, or re-labeled.
Source answer · ExcerptACME is not now, nor has it ever been, a miner, miller, importer, distributor, or marketer of raw asbestos fiber …
Adapted from Noetic product examples. Source excerpts and findings are condensed for this walkthrough; full underlying documents are not hosted here.
Use these capabilities together or individually to help your team move from searching old files to preparing and reviewing the current response.
Analyze the substance, legal theories, parties, and expected response type of incoming requests. Identify issues that warrant attention before drafting.
Find substantively related prior requests and answers across your repository. Search by meaning and intent, beyond matching keywords, then assess whether the earlier response fits this matter.
Bring factual assertions, objection patterns, and cross-references from prior responses into the preparation process. Inspect the underlying records before carrying language forward.
Flag potential conflicts within a draft and against earlier factual or objection positions during preparation. Resolve differences before the response is finalized.
Ask, “Have we answered this type of request before?” or “Which records support this date?” Receive source-linked answers based on retrieved served documents and supporting records.
Quality control across the workflow. Citation validation and consistency checks support attorney review. A citation provides a route to the evidence; your team verifies its context and whether it supports the proposed answer.
Noetic extracts asserted facts from discovery documents, associates them with dates and topics where available, and compares related assertions. The Facts Database supports answer preparation with relevant assertions and their sources. Its timeline brings the record into view; flagged pairs help attorneys investigate statements that may conflict, including positions already served on the other side.
An assertion is a statement in the record, not an established fact. Review its source, scope, and context before deciding whether a pair is contradictory or calls for further discovery.
Separate fictional illustration. This testing scenario shows how a qualification can disappear over years of drafting. It is separate from the cited testing example above. Event dates and response dates are labeled separately.
An outside hygienist samples airborne asbestos during an insulation-removal project.
Compare the historical disclosure →The company’s routine air-monitoring program begins.
Review the original qualification →A response identifies both the 1976 contractor project and the 1980 routine program.
Read the earlier assertion →A new draft says Defendant conducted no asbestos testing before 1980.
See what changed →“Defendant’s routine asbestos air-monitoring program began in 1980.”
“Defendant conducted no asbestos testing in its production areas before 1980.”
The draft turns the start of a routine program into a denial of all earlier testing. Compare that broader statement with the separately disclosed contractor sampling.
“At Defendant’s direction, an outside industrial hygienist collected airborne-asbestos samples in the assembly building during the 1976 insulation-removal project.”
“Defendant conducted no asbestos testing in its production areas before 1980.”
The earlier response identifies testing directed by Defendant before 1980. Check whether the current request includes contractor work and whether the assembly building falls within the relevant production areas. The earlier disclosure is already available to opposing counsel.
The review connects related terminology, dates, and scope: contractor sampling, routine monitoring, and a broader draft denial. Attorneys determine whether the difference is explainable or requires a revised answer.
Prepare responses for recurring discovery, including mass tort and multi-matter litigation, while checking consistency with earlier positions.
Evaluate incoming responses against the original requests and build a clearer record of admissions, gaps, and potential inconsistencies.
Make prior discovery positions searchable across matters and help internal and outside counsel identify differences that need review.
We’re inviting litigation teams to explore Noetic’s approach to discovery response preparation. Start with a conversation, then a demonstration focused on your team’s needs.
Tell us about your documents, recurring tasks, and review requirements. No client materials are needed for this conversation.
Explore the workflow, its outputs, and where human review fits. Bring the questions your team needs answered.
If there’s a fit, agree on scope, handling requirements, pricing, and what would make an evaluation worthwhile.
Discuss data handling before sharing matter documents. Access, hosting, model providers, retention, and separation between matters belong in that discussion. We’ll work through your requirements before agreeing an evaluation.
Explore evaluation of your own drafts or generation of proposed answers for your review. We’ll follow up to discuss your workflow and arrange a relevant demonstration.
Prefer email? info@noeticanalytics.net
See our website privacy policy for how we handle your inquiry.