Author: Michael D. Berman
← Back to Blog
Search
Authors
“Contention Interrogatories” Asking for “All” Facts Were Too Broad
Contention interrogatories ask an opponent to state the facts on which it relies to support a specific contention. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2) as amended in 1970 states: An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an...
The Standard for a Preservation Order
“Plaintiff True Footage Inc. asks the Court to enter an order directing Defendants Automax AI Inc., Automax AI (US) Inc., and Humza Ahmed to preserve evidence. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request.” True Footage Inc. v....
When a Redacted Document Was Used to Prepare a Witness, Only the Redacted Document Needs to Be Produced in Discovery
Plaintiff Mr. Corkery filed an emergency motion to amend or remove redactions to a document that he planned to use in an upcoming deposition. He also sought a privilege log for the redactions, “if any...
Is There a “Litmus Test” for a Categorical Privilege Log
A categorial privilege log was not appropriate for a small number of documents according to Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. Transpire Bio Inc., 2026 WL 30333478 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2026). The court wrote that: “The...
Defendant Claimed Video of Abuse Was a “Deepfake”; Victim Was Asleep and Could Not Attest to Abuse
After an alleged “deepfake” video of a sexual assault was admitted over objection, the Defendant appealed his conviction. The Supreme Court of Iowa wrote: “In this sexual abuse case, we are asked to decide whether the...
Proposed Montana Deepfake Rule
The Montana Commission on Rules of Evidence has amended its proposed rule of evidence to address deepfakes. Based on public comments, proposed Rule 901 was “modified to avoid confusion where a judge, not a jury,...
Are an Expert’s A.I. Prompts Discoverable? Maybe.
Michael D. Berman uses Villanueva v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept. to discuss disclosing AI prompt systems in court, and the protections around AI searches.
Three More A.I. Protective Orders
Michael D. Berman examines three recent AI protective orders addressing how confidential discovery materials may, and may not, be submitted to artificial intelligence tools.
Timing of Propounding and Responding to “Contention Interrogatories”
Michael D. Berman examines when contention interrogatories become ripe for response, highlighting a Carvana ruling that favors responses near the end of fact discovery.
New York Court’s A.I. Regulation Did Not Violate Unrepresented Person’s Rights
Michael D. Berman examines Bradwell v. Hochul, where a federal court rejected a self-represented litigant’s constitutional challenge involving New York’s AI rules for court filings.
Former CEO Had No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Company’s Electronic Devices
Michael Berman explores U.S.A. v. Chu as an important reminder of the importance of information governance in connection with assertions of privacy or privilege when an employee uses business devices for personal communications.
Should There Be an “A.I. Exception” to Liberal Construction of Pro Se Pleadings?
Michael D. Berman explores the liberal construction pro se pleadings are entitled to, and whether this rule ought to be reexamined in the age of AI.