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

“Artificial intelligence can be a useful discovery tool. However, as discussed below, AI is not a substitute for attorneys and litigants exercising independent judgment and oversight in the discovery process. Relatedly, the Court once again reminds counsel of their obligation to meaningfully meet and confer with one another before seeking the Court’s involvement in discovery disputes. Exclusive reliance on AI-generated discovery responses does not satisfy this obligation.” White v. Walmart, Inc., 2026 WL 1002132, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2026)(emphasis added).

The court wrote that Plaintiff’s counsel “has taken a perilous shortcut around his responsibilities as a trained legal professional.” Id. Here, the artificial intelligence “claims that Defendant’s answer to every interrogatory is deficient, without any consideration of whether the asserted deficiencies are material or otherwise warrant additional discussion or supplementation.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Ms. White sued Walmart for wrongful termination and retaliation for making a worker’s compensation claim. Defendant Walmart asserted discovery inadequacies in Plaintiff White’s responses and the court scheduled a conference:

Shortly before this conference, Plaintiff’s counsel raised his own concerns regarding Defendant’s discovery responses. However, a review of Plaintiff’s concerns quickly revealed that they are based solely on an AI-generated list of supposed deficiencies. The Court questioned Plaintiff’s counsel about this directly at the April 10 conference. Plaintiff’s counsel admitted that he simply uploaded Defendant’s discovery responses into an AI program, asked AI to identify insufficient responses, and copied and pasted the results to an email that he sent to Defendant’s counsel and to the Court.

Id. (emphasis added).

The White court wrote: “Attorneys and litigants must exercise independent judgment and oversight in discovery-related matters, even when using AI tools. Plaintiff’s exclusive reliance on AI is improper.” Id. It added: “Before an attorney raises a discovery dispute, that attorney must independently consider any discovery deficiencies identified by AI.” Id. It is “improper” to “outsource” discovery arguments to AI. Id. (citation omitted).

Additionally, the White court held that, by relying exclusively on A.I. to identify and discuss discovery issues, “Plaintiff’s counsel also has failed to confer in good faith before bringing the alleged deficiencies to the Court’s attention.” Id. at *2 (citation omitted).

The court summed it up: “As this order reflects, AI is a useful tool, but not a substitute for good lawyering. Nor does exclusive reliance on AI satisfy counsel’s obligation to meet and confer in good faith before asking the Court to wade into a discovery dispute.” Id.

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