Enhancing Protective Orders To Address Generative AI
An e-discovery focused article on the risks of using AI to interrogate opposing productions both for the receiving and producing party and how parties should consider addressing it in protective orders. More details below:
April 01, 2024 at 10:00 AM
7 minute read
Artificial Intelligence may be the hottest two words in business right now and that is as true in law, litigation and discovery as well. While there may be more hype than substance at the moment, it is clear that the possibilities of using Generative AI in e-discovery to understand your own documents and that of your opponents is tantalizing.
Because your opponent may want to analyze your data using their Generative AI tool, as explained in more detail below, you should consider enhancing your protective orders to ensure such use does not unreasonably expose and unintentionally disseminate your client's confidential information.
Even though the evidence is not yet in that Generative AI currently enhances a party's ability to produce documents by making it faster, cheaper, or more defensible, clients and lawyers need to anticipate that their opponents may use it to analyze documents produced to them in discovery. In other words, a party should assume that their opponents are feeding the documents the party has produced into a Generative AI tool to analyze the party's production.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Attempting to Curb Artificial Intelligence: The EU Makes the First Move
Turbocharge Growth: How Technology Will Shape a Successful 2025
Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Standing for Plaintiffs in Copyright Suit Over AI Training of ChatGPT
OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 2People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 4Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 5Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
