Case Law
← Back to Blog
Search
Authors
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...
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.
More eDiscovery People Per Square Inch: EDRM at RelFest Chicago
Mary Mack reflects on her experience at RelFest Chicago, reflecting on meeting people, exchanging ideas, and spending time getting to know the nationwide eDiscovery community through a week of activities.
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.
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.
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...