No Violation of A.I. Protective Order

Courts are routinely granting A.I. protective orders by consent.  U.S. v. Paula, 2026 WL 2665024, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.  Sep. 10, 2026).

In Elgin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2026 WL 2664674, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2026), Wells Fargo asserted that Plaintiff violated such a protective order.  “Specifically, Wells Fargo contends that Plaintiff violated the stipulated protective order by uploading Wells Fargo’s discovery requests into an AI tool and then responding to those rewritten requests rather than the requests propounded.”  Id.  Two weeks later, Plaintiff served corrected responses.

The court wrote:

In opposition, Plaintiff clarifies that the stipulated protective order was not violated, because the material uploaded into the closed AI tool was not confidential and AI was not used to respond to the rewritten requests. Moreover, Plaintiff explains that Wells Fargo did not produce any documents marked “Confidential” until one week after the errant responses were served.…. Plaintiff’s points are well taken. Since Plaintiff provided corrected responses to all of the discovery devices within two weeks of the errant responses, and Plaintiff did not violate the stipulated protective order, the Court declines to find that Plaintiff waived all objections to the respective discovery devices or find that the requests for admission must be admitted.

Id. at *1 (emphasis added).

The court added: “Furthermore, the parties are advised that the Court has limited, judicial resources and does not appreciate unnecessary motion practice. Plaintiff served the corrected responses to all three discovery devices prior to the parties’ completion of the meet and confer process, which should have resolved this dispute informally. This is particularly true given the extreme relief sought by Wells Fargo. The Court trusts that, going forward, the parties will be more judicious in deciding which disputes require court intervention.”

For more information on AI Protective Orders, please visit:

• 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).