“‘Show How 3M Is 0% at Fault:’ Expert Witness Used ChatGPT to Write Report Defending Company in Deadly Explosion Lawsuit”

Josh Autenrieth, Laake v. 3M Co., No. 2020-05505-A (11th Dist. Ct. Harris Cty., Tex. July 21, 2026), is not available on Westlaw; however, in this $61 million lawsuit, Jason Koebler’s post, ‘Show How 3M Is 0% at Fault:’ Expert Witness Used ChatGPT to Write Report Defending Company in Deadly Explosion Lawsuit (Aug. 17, 2026), tells the story. He wrote:

An expert witness testifying in a lawsuit about liability for a Houston explosion that killed three people and destroyed roughly 200 homes used ChatGPT to write significant portions of his “expert report.” The man, who was hired by the industrial product conglomerate 3M, exposed his AI prompts publicly. They showed that he asked ChatGPT to help him “create an exceptional expert witness report defending the standard of care at 3M,” and that the report should “show how 3M is 0% at fault for the explosion at Watson Grinding.”

Mr. Koebler added:

The incident shows that artificial intelligence has made its way into courtrooms not just in AI-generated legal briefings, hallucinated cases, and adversarial “prompt injections,” but in expert witness testimonies. Court transcripts, deposition documents, and discovery records shared with 404 Media show extensive AI use in an extremely high profile case, where multiple people died and hundreds of millions of dollars in total liability are at stake in ongoing litigation about the explosion. The case also shows that the specific prompts used to create this type of expert testimony can be discoverable during a case, and that those prompts can be quite embarrassing.

The lawsuit centers on an explosion allegedly caused by a “degraded and poorly crimped” hose.  Dozens of homeowners have sued 3M.  Id.  The article reports that the expert was paid roughly $90,000.

The expert’s use of AI was discovered when plaintiff’s attorney, Will Moye, found a five-page document called “Citation Overlay” which he recognized as coming from ChatGPT.  He then demanded production of all of the prompts used to create the report.  Mr. Koebler reported:

ChatGPT created a roughly 30-page report that included the line “From a technical and standard-of-care standpoint, 3M is 0% responsible for the January 24, 2020 explosion.” This line did not make it into the final report filed with the court, because when Autenrieth later asked ChatGPT to “review this as the opposing council,” ChatGPT determined that writing “‘0% responsible’ is an easy target” for a lawyer to poke holes in, and is one of several “phrases [that] let opposing counsel paint you as an advocate rather than an expert.”

Mr. Moye is quoted as stating that the expert “acknowledged [at trial] the prompts he put in were biased toward 3M to help 3M win the case […] it’s really egregious.”  Mr. Moye said that many of the prompts were entered the night before the expert’s deposition, and Mr. Moye uncovered a lot:

[The expert] also asked ChatGPT to “grade” his report (it got a 97/100), and “what are the 5 main things in my report the prosecution could attack and how do I defend them?” He then asked ChatGPT if his resume was sufficient to be an expert witness; “will prosecution go after me for never having been [an expert witness] before based on wording and how do I defend that?”

Additional details and part of the transcript are published in Mr. Koebler’s post. The post states: “In the examination at trial, Moye and Autenrieth agree that the submitted report is ‘90 to 85 percent ChatGPT.’” Id.

Mr. Moye said that “every lawyer needs to make sure their own experts aren’t generating work product in a way that’s insincere, and then knowing you can subpoena the prompts […]”  Id.

In response, the expert said that he has a body of work and more than 20 years of experience in the relevant field of gas detection.  The article states: “He did not explain why he used ChatGPT, but said ‘my opinions were put in there, and AI helped me to draft a straw man to build off of,’ and added ‘I put information and opinions in up front before it ever generated […] if the output wasn’t of my opinion or what I agreed to, I did alter it.’”

The post states: “The jury in the 3M case awarded more than $61 million to the plaintiffs, apportioning 30 percent of the responsibility to 3M and 70 percent to Watson Grinding.” Id.

Mr. Moye’s website states: “The Watson Grinding and Manufacturing explosion occurred when a propylene gas leak ignited at the facility in northwest Houston, sending a massive fireball through the neighborhood. The blast killed three employees, injured many others, and caused an estimated $200 million in property damage.”

Thanks to Jason Koebler for his post.  This one is based entirely on his post, which has much more detail.