Stipulated A.I. Order Protects Expert’s Prompts and Outputs

The stipulated protective order in Waterford Township Gen. Employees Retirement System v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., 2026 WL 1858112 (W.D. Wash. Jun. 29, 2026), addressed the protection of A.I. used by a party’s expert.  It stated:

Neither side must preserve or disclose, including in expert deposition testimony, the following documents or materials:…  Artificial Intelligence (“Artificial Intelligence” or “AI” means any software, system, or technology that utilizes machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, natural language processing, computer vision, or other computational techniques to: (a) learn from data or experience; (b) make predictions, recommendations, classifications, or decisions; (c) generate content, including text, images, audio, video, code, or other outputs; or (d) perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence or judgment. Artificial Intelligence includes, without limitation, generative AI systems, large language models (LLMs), machine learning models, predictive analytics tools, and autonomous or semi-autonomous decision-making systems) prompts and output that any expert or any person assisting an expert used in the course of their work on this matter, including but not limited to producing an expert witness report, provided however, nothing contained herein is intended to or shall serve to limit a party’s right to examine the bases for an expert’s opinion, sources relied on, or methodology…. [emphasis added].

I’m a bit curious to see how a party can depose an expert on “the bases for [the] expert’s opinion, sources relied on, or methodology,” but if the expert used A.I., the expert need not “disclose, including in expert deposition testimony,” “prompts and output” that  the “expert used in the course of their work on this matter….”

For examples of other types of A.I. confidentiality orders, see:

• Are Protective Orders Limiting Upload to AI of Documents Produced by an Opponent in Discovery Becoming the Standard of Care? (May 26, 2026).
• Another Confidentiality Order Limiting Use of AI to Analyze Protected Materials (Apr. 27, 2026).
• I. Protective Orders Are Becoming Routine(Apr. 20, 2026).
• “Deepfake Executives, Created Via Depositions, Pose Grave Threat”: Protective Order Suggested(Apr. 5, 2026).
• 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). Notably, in Jeffries, the protective order applied to both confidential and non-confidential information produced in discovery.