Source: Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Federal magistrate judge Anthony P. Patti of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan’s Southern Division denied a Feb. 10 motion to compel discovery of a pro se plaintiff’s use of ChatGPT and other third‑party AI tools in Warner v. Gilbarco. Defendants had moved for “all documents and information concerning [the plaintiff’s] use of third‑party AI tools,” including prompts, outputs, and activity logs, asserting those materials would show how the plaintiff’s filings were prepared. Patti found the request speculative and held that compelling such materials would disclose the plaintiff’s mental impressions and litigation strategy, concluding they are protected work product under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

The court emphasized that generative AI programs are tools, not persons, and that forcing disclosure of AI prompts would amount to compelling the plaintiff’s internal analysis and thought process. Patti also held that a pro se litigant can assert work‑product protection and described the defendants’ request as a “fishing expedition” and a distraction from the merits. The piece contrasts this civil ruling with U.S. v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y.), where Judge Jed S. Rakoff found a criminal defendant had waived attorney–client privilege and lacked work‑product protection for AI‑created documents; Michigan practitioners quoted in the article called the law “fluid” and noted differing district court outcomes, advising practitioners to understand AI limitations and follow guidelines to preserve confidentiality.