Exception to Meet and Confer Requirement; and, Failure to Disclose Use of A.I.

In Allen v. Amazon, 2025 WL 3719889 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2025), the court applied a discretionary exception to the “meet and confer” requirement. It also declined to impose sanctions for violation of a Local Rule mandating disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence.

EXCEPTION TO “MEET AND CONFER” REQUIREMENT

In yesterday’s blog, I discussed a case in which the failure to complete a “meet and confer” requirement was fatal to a motion to compel. Failure to Completely Meet & Confer, and Citing a Non-Existent Transcript, Dooms Motion (Dec. 27, 2025).[1]

Courts have recognized a futility exception. When is a Motion for Protective Order Untimely?  Meet and Confer Was Futile (Oct. 3, 2025)(opponent rejected requests to confer).

Further, non-parties may be excused from the requirement.  No Need to Meet and Confer Before Motion to Quash Subpoena in District of AZ (Dec. 19, 2024).

A discretionary exception was applied in Allen v. Amazon, 2025 WL 3719889 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2025). Pro se plaintiff Allen challenged Amazon’s discovery responses, alleging that they contained unsupported and boilerplate objections. In pertinent part, Amazon responded by asserting Mr. Allen’s failure to comply with the “meet and confer” rules. The court recited the factual efforts to meet:

In his motion, Allen represented that he “attempted in good faith to confer with Defendant’s counsel … on 25, OF October, 2025 but no agreement was reached.” …. Amazon disputes Allen’s representation of what occurred. It contends that, on October 27, 2025, Allen sent a letter to Amazon’s counsel after business hours to “initiate a good-faith meet-and-confer regarding [Amazon]’s recently served subpoenas” and then requested a response within two days. …. Before the two-day deadline expired, Allen filed the motion to modify the subpoenas and for a protective order.

The Allen court found a failure to comply with both Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1) and L.R. 7.1(b)(3). Specifically, Allen failed to meet and confer.

However, the Allen court excused that failure, explaining:

The court in its discretion can excuse a failure to confer when “it is clear that the motion is opposed and that a conference would neither have eliminated nor narrowed the parties’ dispute.”…. Here, although Allen’s certificate of conference violates both a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and one of this court’s local civil rules, it is clear that the motion is opposed. The issue in dispute—whether the information sought in three identically worded subpoenas is relevant—is also already sufficiently narrow despite the absence of the required conference. Accordingly, the court will not deny Allen’s motion based solely on his failure to comply with Rule 26(c)(1) and local civil rule 7.1.

Id. at *1-2 (emphasis added). The court warned that future non-compliance would not be excused.

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE USE OF A.I.

Northern District of Texas Local Rule 7.2(f)(1) requires that “[a] brief prepared using generative [AI] must disclose this fact on the first page[.]”  Id. at *2.

Amazon sought to strike Mr. Allen’s brief for non-compliance.  The court wrote that:

Allen does not dispute that he used AI or that he failed to make the required disclosure. According to Amazon, Allen’s use of AI has resulted in his citing non-existent cases and procedures and providing hallucinated quotations.

Id.  However, “Allen is proceeding pro se, and the court has not previously warned him of the consequences of failing to comply with the court’s local civil rules.”  Id. The court stated that a warning was not required; however, “the court deems it best to admonish Allen before imposing sanctions that could be quite severe,” and it warned Mr. Allen of the consequences of a future violation. Id.

The court then addressed the merits of Mr. Allen’s challenges to three subpoenas, his request for a protective order, and, his motion concerning Amazon’s discovery responses.

____

[1] See Motions to Compel Were Both Not Ripe and Not Timely – Plaintiff’s Theory is “Upside Down” (Dec. 24 2025); Half-Baked Motion to Compel Was Not Prompt, Not Ripe, Not Complete, and Not Likely to Succeed (Aug. 22, 2025).