Source: Spencer Fane

In June 2026, courts in Texas and New York addressed the discoverability of AI-assisted litigation materials. On June 3, the Texas Business Court ruled in Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC that a party principal’s ChatGPT conversations qualify as attorney work product under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5, with the court also holding that use of ChatGPT does not waive that protection. The following day, the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, in Assini v. Hayward quashed subpoenas targeting a self-represented defendant’s AI prompts, uploads, and outputs under CPLR 2304, recognizing AI-assisted litigation preparation as protected trial-preparation material.

The New York court emphasized that a self-represented litigant’s AI-assisted case work may be shielded, equating the AI tool’s role to a confidential legal pad or strategy discussion with a colleague. It also declined to find that using third-party commercial AI services forfeits confidentiality. Both courts stressed that AI work-product protection hinges on the purpose and content of the AI materials, not the medium. The Texas court, while protecting the chat logs, nonetheless required disclosure of all documents and work product uploaded into ChatGPT, illustrating that protection for AI outputs exists alongside court supervision of what information is input into AI tools. The New York court underscored its authority over AI use by referencing local rules (22 NYCRR Part 161) and warning of sanctions for misuse.