A.I. Protective Order by Consent in Google Case

The following AI Protective Order was stipulated in Skaf v. Google LLC, 2026 WL 2620563, at *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026):

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools and Large Language Models. Protected Material, and all information derived therefrom, shall not be inputted, uploaded, or submitted to any open, publicly accessible or freely available consumer-grade Large Language Model (“LLM”) or Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tool (collectively, “AI Tools”). Protected Material may only be inputted, uploaded, or submitted to an AI Tool that is enterprise-grade and maintains confidential information using industry standard data security safeguards (“Confidential AI Tool”) after the Receiving Party first ensures that its contract with the AI Provider of the Confidential AI Tool:

(1) Prohibits the AI Provider from storing or using inputs to train, refine, or improve its model;

(2) Prohibits the AI Provider from disclosing inputs, metadata, and any information generated by the Confidential AI Tool to any third party, including integrated third party tools, except where such disclosure is essential to facilitating delivery of the service, in which case that third party shall be bound by obligations no less protective than those required by this Order; and

(3) Permits the Receiving Party to remove or delete the Protected Material, and any information generated by the Confidential AI Tool upon request.

A Receiving Party intending to use a Confidential AI Tool that it contends meets these requirements must retain written documentation of these contractual protections. In addition, the Protected Material, and any information generated by the Confidential AI Tool, including residual information stored in the Confidential AI Tool as a result of the submission of the Protected Material, must be deleted from the Confidential AI Tool at the close of the litigation, and in accordance with the Final Disposition section below. Any inputs, outputs, models, or other artifacts (e.g., embeddings, indexes, or logs) used in or created by a Confidential AI Tool that are derived from or contain Protected Material shall be subject to Section 7.1 and shall not be used for any purpose other than prosecuting or defending this litigation.

For the avoidance of doubt, submitting Protected Material, or excerpts therefrom, to any AI Tool that does not meet the requirements of this section is considered unauthorized disclosure to a third party under Section 10 of this Order. Nothing in this provision shall alter the obligations set forth in Section 1 (“Purposes and Limitations”) and Section 12.9 (“Data Security”) of this Order.

For more information on A.I. Protective Orders, please visit:

• No Violation of A.I. Protective Order (Sep. 11, 2026);
• Another Dispute over A.I. Protective Order (Sep. 6, 2026);
• A.I. Protective Orders Are Becoming Routine (Aug. 27 ,2026);
•  Another A.I. Protective Order – Part 10 (Aug. 21, 2026);
• Restrictions on Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Process Disclosure Materials (Jul. 27, 2026);
• Another A.I. Protective Order (Jul. 9, 2026);
•  A.I. Protective Order—Again (Jun. 18, 2026);
• Unicorn Rejects A.I. Protective/Confidentiality Order – Order Entered in Criminal Case (Jun. 4, 2026);
• Are Protective Orders Limiting Upload to AI of Documents Produced by an Opponent in Discovery Becoming the Standard of Care?  (May 26, 2026), discussing Rudasill v. Swiss Re American Holding Corporation, 2026 WL 1329451 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2026);
• Another Confidentiality Order Limiting Use of AI to Analyze Protected Materials (Apr. 27, 2026), discussing In re: ByHeart, Inc., Infant Formula Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation,2026 WL 1103170 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2026);
• A.I. Protective Orders Are Becoming Routine (Apr. 20, 2026), discussing Stansfield v. International Business Machines Corporation, 2026 WL 1031230, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2026);
• “Deepfake Executives, Created Via Depositions, Pose Grave Threat”: Protective Order Suggested (Apr. 5, 2026);
• Morgan v. V2X, Inc.,2026 WL 864223 (D. Col. Mar. 30, 2026), as also discussed in Important A.I. Work Product and Protective Order Decision (Mar. 31, 2026);
• Order Prohibiting Upload of Confidential Discovery Documents to Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) (Nov. 3, 2025), based on Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., 2025 WL 3047881 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2025);
• Protective Order Limited Uploading Discovery Responses to Open A.I.(Mar. 26, 2026), discussing Jeffries v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc.,2026 WL 820218 (D. Kans. Mar. 25, 2026).