Can AI write a case law order? One judge decided to implement a unique idea to see how generative AI would handle three discovery disputes.
Last week for the Case Law Update session at Relativity Fest, moderator David Horrigan asked us all to identify our case of the year (so far). David identified the two rulings from 11th Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom where he used AI to inform his rulings here and here. I picked this case, which goes with (in my opinion) the issue of the year. Kelly Twigger picked this case, which was a great mobile spoliation case. And the Honorable Andrew J. Peck tapped into two of our favorite themes on the EDRM webinars we conduct together by selecting this case that dealt with 502(d) orders and this case that dealt with Judge Peck’s famous rule 1.1 (you’ll have to check out our webinars to find out what that is).
California Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard chose to do something a little bit different. With a list of cases to consider that we have covered so far this year, Judge Goddard had a “unique idea”. Instead of picking a case, she decided she would “take a page from my high school students and see if I could get some GenAI help with the assignment”. As she noted:
“I uploaded three cases into Claude.ai, gave it a basic set of background facts, and asked Claude to write an order using the principles set forth in the three cases.”
Here are Judge Goddard’s initial instructions to Claude (with the cases she uploaded linked for reference purposes):
I would like to combine the legal principles in each of these cases into one court order that I will use for demonstrative purposes only. The factual background for the order should be that there is a lawsuit between plaintiff and defendant, where plaintiff alleges that defendant sexually harassed her and she suffered emotional distress as a result. The first discovery dispute that the order needs to resolve is that Plaintiff served the following interrogatory on defendant: “State all times in the last 4 years that you have been accused of engaging in improper sexual conduct and identify the names and contact witnesses of all persons who have made such an accusation!’ Defendant objected that the request was overly broad, unduly burdensome, and invaded his privacy. He refused to answer the interrogatory. Plaintiff agreed during a meet and confer to limit the interrogatory to any other lawsuits or written pre-lawsuit demands accusing defendant of sexual harassment. Using the principles set forth in the Byte Fed v. Luxe Vending case, draft resolution to this dispute.
The second discovery dispute that the order needs to resolve is that Defendant accuses Plaintiff of selectively deleting her text messages. Defendant obtained text messages from one of plaintiff’s friends where plaintiff says that defendant is the perfect target because he has lots of money and her lawyer is going to make him pay for what he did. Plaintiff never produced any text messages, even though defendant served written discovery requests that would encompass text messages. Plaintiff stated that her phone is set to delete text messages automatically after 30 days and she did not change that setting after she filed this lawsuit. Defendant now seeks an adverse jury instruction and monetary sanctions against plaintiff for spoliation of ESI. Using the principles set forth in the Armstrong v. Holmes case, draft a resolution to this dispute.
Read full article at https://ediscoverytoday.com/2024/10/02/can-ai-write-a-case-law-order-one-judges-unique-idea-artificial-intelligence-trends/
