Improper Reliance on A.I. + Failure to Use Litigation Support Experts + Lack of Transparency = Failure to Comply With “Meet & Confer” Order

After a hearing, the Lighthouse court “issued an interim Order compelling the parties to meet and confer, and to retain an independent third-party electronically stored information (‘ESI’) specialist to assist the parties to effectuate the Court’s previous Order.” They failed to comply. Lighthouse Healthcare Center, LLC v. Nat’l. Fire & Marine Ins., 2026 WL 314898 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2026).

What happened? The parties retained litigation support specialists, but only for the initial meeting. Defendant informed Plaintiff of issues with AI searches; however, the parties did not discuss them with experts. Defendant also developed its own protocols without input from Plaintiff.  This did not comply with the July Order.  On these facts, Plaintiff was not permitted to rely solely on AI. Defendant should have been more transparent. The court order a “do over” with a neutral expert.

The Lighthouse court explained its July order: “The parties were ordered to ‘meet and confer and develop ESI protocols for searching for responsive documents in both OASIS and OnBase databases.’ … The parties were further ordered to ‘each engage a litigation support specialist to participate in the meet and confer process to discuss what information can be extracted from Defendants’ databases, what can be searched, the methodology of the data extraction, how the information should ultimately be produced, and other issues unique to the type of data. The litigation support specialist is to participate in the meet and confer to assess what information can be extracted/downloaded from Defendants’ systems, explore what ‘monitor and adjust’ functions encompass, and develop protocols for downloading the information into useable formats to comply with this Court’s Order from both systems identified by the Defendants.”  Id. at *1 (emphasis added).

The Lighthouse court explained the failure to comply:  “At the hearing, the parties acknowledged that while each party retained either an internal or external litigation support specialist, their participation was limited to the initial meet and confer session. The parties admit that the litigation support specialists were not involved after that initial meeting and did not participate in the meet and confer to “develop protocols for downloading the information into useable formats to comply with this Court’s Order from both systems identified by the Defendants.” …  Both litigation support specialists retained by the parties did not meaningfully engage in providing guidance and direction to the parties as outlined in the July Order. Rather, their roles were limited. Defendants’ in-house litigation support specialist, Mr. Bell, was instructed by Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Levy. … His declaration does not address his involvement resolving the problems with the dataset nor did he discuss developing a methodology. Equally, Plaintiff’s litigation support expert, Mr. Stephen, was involved in a limited capacity in identifying artificial intelligence (‘AI’) search terms. Ultimately, the parties failed to meet and confer to resolve the many issues resulting from the use of Plaintiff’s AI tool. While Defendants did inform Plaintiff of the problems with the AI generated searches, the parties failed to meet and confer to resolve the issues as set forth in the July Order. For example, Defendants state that with respect to OnBase “Ops No Coverage” files, 8,140 records could not be reliably searched.” … More troubling was Defendants’ representation that “a small number of files were too large to include in the aiR assist dataset or were reported as errors by aiR Assist. Excluding those files reduced the AI-reviewable dataset to 57,631 records.” … It appears Plaintiff was ultimately told about the problems, but the parties did not engage in discussions to agree on how to handle the problems with the files, nor were the litigation support specialists engaged to assist the parties in finding a mutually acceptable resolution. Instead, Defendants proceeded to develop protocols without input from the Plaintiff. This does not comply with the July Order.”  Id. at *2 (emphasis added).

Next, the court explained each party’s shortcomings:

The July Order contemplated that the parties, with guidance from the litigation support specialists, meaningfully meet and confer to resolve the issues involving the dataset. That did not happen. While Defendants did undertake an extensive review of the records, they were not transparent about their ad-hoc modifications, and did not meaningfully engage with Plaintiff to develop a methodology on extracting the data in question, and to address the issues arising from the dataset which is contemplated when developing ESI protocols in the July Order.

Additionally, Plaintiff cannot rely solely on AI since the production must be tailored to the parameters set by the Court. Plaintiff did not provide input or engage Mr. Stephen to propose a solution to the problems identified by the Defendants in using Plaintiff’s AI and search terms. AI is but a tool and not a substitute for what the Court Ordered. Defendant did attempt to comply with the Court’s Orders.

Id. at *3 (emphasis added).

The Lighthouse court then explained what it had ordered: “Defendants should have been more transparent and engaged with Plaintiff in developing the overall protocols. The parties should have meaningfully engaged in discussions to fully develop ESI protocols. While there was agreement on the initial search terms and the use of AI tools recommended by the Plaintiff, the July Order specifically ordered the parties to meet and confer to develop an overall methodology on the data extraction and come to a consensus and agreement on methods for extracting information from the Oasis and OnBase databases. The ESI specialists were not involved in advising the parties as to a solution to their ESI discovery limitations but rather took limited roles in the development of ESI protocols.” Id. at *3.

Finally, the court reaffirmed its July Order for the parties to meet, confer, and “hire a third-party neutral ESI expert” to assist in compliance. “The Defendants are to be transparent on the methodology undertaken thus far and come to a consensus with Plaintiff in an effort toward resolution of the problems outlined in Defendants’ Opposition. The ESI expert shall be given access to the databases in question and provide assistance to the parties to develop comprehensive protocols, address the problems outlined in Defendants’ Opposition, and to ultimately ensure Defendants’ production of documents in compliance with this Order and the July Order.” Id. at *3.

For another decision denying a request to use artificial intelligence, see Meta Stipulated for Special Master Privilege Review After Denial of Request for A.I. Review (Oct. 22, 2026).

This blog was initially posted on  Electronic Discovery Reference Model.