Otter.ai “Transcript” Was Excluded From Consideration

An example of an ineffective use of artificial intelligence was provided in Camarillo Hospitality LLC v. G6 Hospitality LLC, 2026 WL 1113871 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026).

Defendant logged on to a virtual meeting using free Microsoft Teams software.  Unknown to both parties, that triggered a recording by Otter.ai.  Both counsel were notified by an after-the-fact email offering a download of an AI transcript.  Plaintiffs paid for it and filed the transcript in support of their motion. Defendant objected. The Camarillo Hospitality court excluded it.

After a motion to dissolve a TRO was denied, the court ordered a meet and confer. Further, plaintiffs were ordered to file a declaration “outlining in detail” the results of that meeting and a supplemental reply. Id. at *3.

And, that is where A.I. became at issue. The court wrote:

The result was anything but helpful. On April 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental “reply” that described in detail how the parties met and conferred on several occasions, none of which were productive…. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant made various admissions during the meet and confer sessions that, according to Plaintiffs, further justify the issuance of an order to show cause…. The trouble is that Plaintiffs’ arguments are based, in large part, on material taken from “transcripts” of the meet and confer conferences …  that appear to have been automatically generated by an Artificial Intelligence tool associated with the video conference software (Microsoft Teams) utilized by the parties.

Id. at * 3 (emphasis added).

Defense counsel objected immediately.  Counsel was “completely unaware” that the meeting was being recorded until after it was over and counsel received an email permitting download of a transcript.  Defense counsel further asserted that the recording violated California law.  Plaintiffs also learned of the recording via an email from Otter.ai.

The Court “immediately” sealed the “transcripts.” Id. at *3.  The court explained that:

Unfamiliar with Otter.ai, counsel inquired of Plaintiffs’ representative whether he had access to the service and was informed that Defendant had apparently triggered generation of the “transcript” service using a free log-in and that Plaintiffs were able to only access a limited portion of the transcription…. Based on that information, Plaintiffs’ counsel arranged to obtain the complete “transcript” of the March 30 meeting and a subsequent (April 2) meet and confer session by paying for the Otter.ai service….

Id. (emphasis added).  In addition to the lack of consent issue: “Some additional bickering between the parties ensued about whether these ‘transcripts’ captured privileged or otherwise confidential discussions.”  Id.

The court’s holding was:

The Court sees no reason to engage in greater depth in the resulting disputes over the “transcript” because: (1) neither party appears to have known enough about Otter.ai to have used it deliberately in an unlawful or improper way; and (2) the Court will not consider the transcript or any arguments based upon those “transcripts” for the simple reason that no party has made any effort to demonstrate its accuracy or trustworthiness. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ supplemental reply brief is stripped of much, but not all, of its substance.

Id. at *3 (emphasis added).  In short, where GenAI has not be authenticated, it is inadmissible.

The Camarillo Hospitality court next considered the merits, without that “transcript.” In doing so, it wrote: “The Court has spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to sort through this extremely messy record. The Court has not turned over every stone or read between every line and very well may have misunderstood certain facts or arguments. The parties have only themselves to blame for this.” Id. at n. 1.

For more information on recording a “conference of the parties,” please see:

• Felder: Part 1 of 4:  Court-Ordered Transcription of “Meet and Confer” Session (Aug. 13, 2024);
• Sometimes Discovery Disputes Do Not Bring Out the Best in Us – Part II (Jun. 20, 2024)(“The court notes that, from time to time, in contentious cases like this one, courts have ordered that the parties record – by video or court reporter – their Local Rule 37.2 meet-and-confer sessions for the court’s review. Given the history of this case, and the tone of some of the briefs over the course of that history, it does boggle the mind to imagine what must go [on] during these sessions.” S. ex rel. Gill, et al., v. CVS Health Corp. et al., 2024 WL 3028958, at *1 n. 2 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2024).).