[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]

In Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2026 WL 1091186 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2026), the court addressed the pro se deponent’s use of artificial intelligence during a deposition. It prohibited her use of ChatGPT to answer questions and held that her use of ChatGPT was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Ms. Jones sued Delta alleging employment discrimination. She was pro se. A year later, much of the discovery was incomplete. The court granted Ms. Jones several discovery accommodations and extended the deadline twice. Delta moved for dismissal alleging failure to comply. The Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

One order required that Ms. Jones must complete her depositions subject to the accommodations provided. The court warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal.

The deposition commenced. “But the parties did ‘not really even make it through preliminaries before a dispute arose’ that they determined required the Court’s ‘intervention and guidance.’ … So this Court held an emergency virtual status conference with the parties at 11:30 A.M. that day.”

Delta asserted that Ms. Jones was making an unauthorized recording of the deposition. And, “Delta’s counsel noted that ‘Jones appeared to be reading materials from her screen while responding to questions, and when asked about that, [Jones] admitted that she had an [artificial intelligence] platform open on her device, which was … ChatGPT.’” [emphasis added].

Next:

Delta’s counsel then asked Jones “whether [Jones] was feeding information into [ChatGPT] as the deposition was progressing” and Jones refused to answer, “citing attorney/client privilege as the reason for refusing to answer” the question despite confirming that she was not being represented by counsel. [emphasis added].

At the court conference:

This Court asked whether Jones agreed with what Delta’s counsel had said, and Jones said she did not…. First, Jones said that she had never refused to stop her unauthorized recording, but that she had asked Delta’s counsel “for accommodations to [record], and [Delta’s counsel] did say no,” but they were “still in the clarification” stage of figuring out whether she could record the deposition…. Jones explained that she needed a recording of the deposition “to take notes for [her] disabilities and medical needs.” … Second, Jones said that she was using ChatGPT to assist her in knowing how to “proceed legally as a pro se representation, the same as if there was in person an attorney in which they would object to different things.” [emphasis added].

The result was predictable:

After hearing from both Delta’s counsel and Jones, this Court instructed Jones that she could not “use ChatGPT or any other AI platform, any other person, any other anything to assist [her] in answering questions that are posed to [her] during [her] deposition.”… This Court further explained that Jones could not “refuse to answer questions on the grounds of attorney/client privilege because there [wa]s no attorney present on [Jones’s] behalf and” Jones was not an attorney herself. [emphasis added].

There were a number of other issues unrelated to artificial intelligence and: “Dismissal of Jones’s case with prejudice is warranted under both Civil Rule 37(b)(2) and Civil Rule 41(b) because Jones has repeatedly and willfully failed to engage in discovery and comply with this Court’s orders, which has prejudiced Delta. Given that she has failed to comply despite numerous warnings that such failure would result in dismissal, no lesser sanctions would be appropriate or effective, and this Court will dismiss her case.”

Apparently, the use of AI by deponents is not unprecedented. In another recent case, defendant opposed a remote deposition asserting that it “would preclude Defendant from monitoring Plaintiff’s use of extraneous materials and artificial intelligence or ‘AI’ (which Plaintiff has apparently been using throughout this lawsuit).” Templeton v. Osceola Co., 2026 WL 1071592 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2026). The court wrote that: “Although Plaintiff does provide good reason to conduct a deposition remotely, Defendant also has some compelling argument in its claim of prejudice if a remote deposition were to be ordered.” It added: “I find more persuasive the argument regarding Plaintiff’s use of AI and Defendant’s inability to monitor her use of such AI.”

On related issues, please see:

• Important A.I. Work Product and Protective Order Decision (Mar. 31, 2026);
• Does OpenAI Provide Legal Assistance? (Mar. 11, 2026);
• Discovery Permitted About Development and Use of AI Program (Mar. 10, 2026);
• “Two Courts, Two Answers: When Does Using AI Waive Privilege?” (Mar. 3, 2026);
• A.I. Privilege, Heppner, and How Did the Court Learn About the Absence of Certain Attorney-Client Communications Between Mr. Heppner and His Attorneys? (Mar. 2, 2026);
• A.I. Documents Deemed Not Privileged (Feb. 12, 2026);
• “Against an AI Privilege” – Are Prompts Discoverable?  Is Output? (Jan. 2, 2026);
• “Colorado policy could shield AI from complaints regarding unauthorized practice of law” (Apr. 1, 2026);
• Morgan v. V2X, Inc., 2026 WL 864223 (D. Col. Mar. 30, 2026);
• U.S. v. Heppner, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2026 WL 436479 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026);
•  Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., 2026 WL 373043 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2026);
• Estate of Lokken v. United Health Grp., Inc., 2026 WL 658883 (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 2026).

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.