In February, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York issued case-ending sanctions against an attorney who failed to “learn from his mistakes” and repeatedly submitted filings containing false, AI-generated citations to the court.
Continue Reading Court Sanctions Highlight Potential Risks of Using Unchecked AI in Litigation
During the Generative AI and Litigation CLE Panel at the New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting, the panelists discussed whether AI “prompts” that are typically used to create output from generative AI are discoverable and whether all such prompts can be deemed privileged. The audience seemed surprised to learn that the short answers are
Late last year, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes to Rules 26 and 16 focus on streamlining discovery, particularly regarding privilege and work product, by mandating that parties address these issues at the initial Rule 26(f) conference.
In Sound Around, Inc. v. Moises Friedman, Magistrate Judge Katharine A. Parker addressed Rule 34 standards relating to the production of structured data from dynamic databases. Plaintiff filed a robust complaint alleging the defendants misappropriated confidential trade secret information, diverted corporate opportunities, used plaintiff’s trademarks and overall commercial image and appearance (i.e., trade dress) to market
Hubbard v. Crow is a recent federal case highlighting complex issues at the intersection of technology and the law, particularly regarding the preservation and production of electronic evidence under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The case centered on a dispute over plaintiffs’ alleged failure to produce an unedited podcast recording, which
Judges are still figuring out the best way to preempt misuse of generative AI (GenAI) in their courts as use of AI technology becomes more commonplace in litigation.
Since Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued the first standing order on the use of AI in preparing
Court in New York denied motion to compel ESI from personal phones, ruling plaintiffs lacked evidence that board members used personal devices for business or that the town had control over such ESI.
Continue Reading Compelling Parties to Collect ESI from Personal Devices
In Dale v. T-Mobile US, Inc. – a putative antitrust class action litigation – Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole resolved whether and to what extent confidentiality agreements between parties apply to productions nonparty recipients of subpoenas made.
Continue Reading Confidentiality Agreements Applied to Non-Party Recipients
In Wilbert v. Pyramid Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Silvermist Recovery Center, et al., the plaintiff filed suit alleging pregnancy-based discrimination and harassment, culminating in her termination. According to the court, the parties never agreed on how to handle the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) in connection with the litigation.
Continue Reading Compliance with Meet and Confer Obligations Under the Federal Rules
Plaintiff–Appellant Richard Hoffer sued the city of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, and various individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the officers used excessive force when arresting him. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in the officers’ favor. Hoffer appealed the judgment, arguing the district court erred in denying his request