Author: Michael D. Berman
← Back to Blog
Search
Authors
Information Governance–Employee’s Use of Employer’s Email for Privileged Communications
Michael Berman analyzed Lalwani v. Trustees of Indiana University where an employee, plaintiff Mr. Lalwani, had communicated with his lawyers using the employer-defendant university’s email system that found Indiana University to be a public institution...
Another A.I. Protective Order
Protective orders addressing the use of A.I. to review materials produced to an opponent in discovery are becoming routine. The stipulated protective order in RMME LLC v. Majestic Steel USA, Inc., 2026 WL 1831063, at...
It is Improper to Combine Interrogatories and Document Requests
Michael Berman surveys a consistent line of authority holding that the two discovery tools should be served separately, with some courts concluding that defendants need not respond to requests that combine both forms of discovery.
Does Microsoft Teams Require Different Search Terms Than Email?
In Kim v. Cushman & Wakefield, a Central District of California court found that keyword searches adequate for email may be insufficient for Microsoft Teams, where messages are shorter, more informal, and less likely to...
Is it OK if “Actual Authorities” Support the “Bogus” Proposition Set Out in a Hallucinated Case?
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, a federal court rejected the argument that attorneys should avoid sanctions for citing AI-hallucinated cases simply because legitimate authorities support the same legal propositions. The decision emphasizes that fake...
A.I. Protective Order—Again
Two recent Southern District of New York cases highlight a growing trend in discovery practice: protective orders that regulate how parties may use confidential discovery materials with AI tools. While not universal, these provisions increasingly...
Trial Court’s Order Contained Hallucinated Mistake
The Georgia Court of Appeals rebuked both counsel and the trial court after a proposed order containing a hallucinated case citation was submitted and signed. In Henry County Schools v. Grant, the court highlighted errors...
Grant of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion Led to Denial of Defendant’s Sanctions Motion
In Flynn v. Kone, Inc., the District of Maryland denied a sanctions motion alleging failure to preserve text messages after granting summary judgment for the defendant. The decision highlights the practical impact of dispositive rulings...
Unicorn Rejects A.I. Protective/Confidentiality Order – Order Entered in Criminal Case
In Litton v. Roblox Corporation, the Northern District of California declined to modify its model protective order to address AI use, relying on existing standing-order provisions. Michael D. Berman contrasts that decision with a growing...
The Most Significant Ethics Decision of 2026? And it is Only May
The Northern District of California’s sanctions decision in Guardant Health v. Natera may become one of the most consequential legal ethics rulings of 2026. The court adopted findings that multiple attorneys failed to investigate red...
If “Junk” is Responsive to Your Request, You Can’t Complaint About Getting “Junk”
In Alex v. City of Ann Arbor, the court rejected objections to PDF productions and alleged “junk” documents, holding that broad discovery requests often produce broad results.
Deepfake Photos Admitted – Proponent Held in Contempt – 45-Day Incarceration
In an unpublished opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals let stand a finding of contempt with a 45 day incarceration for a photo submitted to prove a health care incident during a divorce proceeding. Opinions...