- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations and Law Firm industries
- within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
A third court has now weighed in on AI privilege issues. Morgan v. V2X, Inc. (D. Colo. March 30, 2026). It found that AI-assisted litigation materials prepared via public AI tools are protected under Rule 26(b)(3) as mental impressions and litigation preparation materials, and that using a consumer AI platform does not automatically waive that protection. However, it granted Defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of the name of AI tool(s) used, ruling that such disclosure, in connection with Confidential Information under the protective order, itself does not reveal plaintiff’s mental impressions or legal strategy, and Defendant needs that information to assess whether Confidential Information was compromised.
It also amended the protective order to address AI use. The effect was to prevent the upload, input, or submission of Confidential Information into certain AI tools. It limited the types of AI tools to those where: i) the tool provider is contractually bound to safeguards no less protective than those required by the Protective Order; and ii) the AI provider contractually affords the party or authorized recipient the ability to remove or delete all Confidential Information upon request. Additionally, it requires a party intending to use AI that it contends meets these requirements to retain written documentation of these contractual protections.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]