Author: Michael D. Berman
← Back to Blog
Search
Authors
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.
The Standard for In Camera Review
BSD Crown demonstrates that a request for in camera review—like every other discovery motion—should be supported by a detailed factual predicate.
Are Mandates in Standing Orders to Disclose Use of GenAI a Good Idea?
Michael D. Burman explores the use of individualized mandatory reports of AI use in standing orders in both Josephs v. Security National Ins. Co. and Chukwurah v. Midland Mortgage.
More on “Bulldog Law”
Michael D. Berman examines the legal decisions around “Bulldog Law” in LLP v. Bulldog Law, P.C. The court ordered an adverse
Unsupervised Self Collection—The Fox Guarding the Chicken Coop—Leads to Discovery on Discovery
Michael Berman examines EEOC v. Yas Carib, Inc as an example of the issue of unsupervised self-collection by Defendants. The case covers attorneys as witnesses, “discovery on discovery”, technical competence, proportionality and “reasonable inquiry.”
Asking When Untimely Discovery Responses Will Be Provided Doesn’t Consent to an Extension
In Dochee v. The Methodist Hospitals, Inc., the court addressed discovery responses served six weeks to two months late. Although it viewed Defendants’ failure to seek an extension or timely respond with disfavor, the court...
Dispute over A.I. Protective Order
In U.S. v. Thomas, defense counsel and the Government disputed proposed protective-order restrictions governing the use of AI in discovery. The court declined both to compel production of purportedly non-sensitive Rule 16 discovery and to...
There is No “Tit for Tat” Defense to a Discovery Request
Michael D. Berman examines Middien v. Gillgan, where the court rejected a “tit-for-tat” approach to discovery, explaining that one party’s alleged discovery failures do not excuse another party’s noncompliance. Berman connects the ruling to decisions...