Contested Motion for AI Protective Order Was Granted

“This is an action by Fischman, proceeding pro se against Epic, asserting claims arising from the alleged role of Epic’s medical software in the death of her father. Fischman has served extensive discovery requests that seek, among other things, the software’s design, development, and implementation.”  Fischman v. Epic Systems, Corp. 2026 WL 3182476 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2026).

The parties differing positions were:

• “Epic now moves for a protective order, contending that documents responsive to these requests contain confidential information and trade secrets.”
• “In response to Epic’s motion, Fischman initially agreed to the entry of some form of a protective order. She now posits, however, that her ‘preferred course is for discovery to proceed … without a separate protective order.’”

The court wrote that it deemed Epic’s request to be opposed.  It held that Epic made the factual showing required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).

As to AI, Epic’s proposal had two features:

• “It prevents the input of confidential and highly confidential information into an AI tool unless that tool is contractually prohibited from … storing or using the inputs to train or improve any model and prohibited from disclosing the inputs to any third party.” [cleaned up]; and,
• It “shall not be construed to limit the use of artificial intelligence for legal research, drafting, organization, or other litigation tasks that do not entail the input of Protected Material.” [cleaned up].

The Fischman court wrote:

As to the provisions restricting the use of AI, Epic maintains that the entry of information into generic AI tools is “effectively irreversible” because these models “commonly retain the text and files that users submit and use those submissions to train and improve the … models.” …. Epic also cites ample authorities that show that courts across the country impose protective orders tailored to address the problems that modern AI tools pose. See, e.g., Morgan v. V2X, Inc., 2026 WL 864223, at *7 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2026) (imposing nearly the same restriction at issue here). Given Fischman’s acknowledged use of AI in this litigation, … the court finds that there is good cause to impose Epic’s proposed AI restrictions in the protective order.

The posts A Unique A.I. Protective Order (Oct. 9, 2026), and Three More A.I. Protective Orders (Oct 9, 2026), provide multiple additional examples