Free Newsletter
Are AI prompts privileged? Time will tell
New York Supreme Court Justice Rhonda E. Fischer ruled that AI prompts used by a pro se defendant may be protected as privileged work product.
Discovery – Sanctions
27-CV-11-08712, 27-CV-12-09013, 27-CV-13-07974 GGP Ltd. P’ship v. County of Hennepin
Discovery – Compelling
27-CV-11-08712, 27-CV-12-09013, 27-CV-13-07974 GGP Ltd. P’ship v. County of Hennepin
Discovery – Compelling
27-CV-11-8506, 27-CV-12-9342 SVF Edinborough, LLC v. County of Hennepin
Discovery – Compelling Production
55-CV-11-3146, 55-CV-12-2904 Menard, Inc. v. County of Olmsted
Discovery – Motions to Compel
27-CV-10-10147, 27-CV-11-09055, 27-CV-12-09870, 27-CV-13-08350 Stag II Maple Grove LLC v. County of Hennepin
Legal Tech
- Gemini Legal launches DraftEngine for civil litigation forms
- Lawyers continue to grapple with AI ethical issues
- Are AI prompts privileged? Time will tell
Top News
- Blanche to face skeptics in GOP after judge’s scathing criticism
- U.S. Supreme Court justices testify on Capitol Hill as threats to judges surge
- Minnesota to receive $850,000 in CVS billing settlement
- DOJ shares Metro Surge shooting evidence with state
- Milwaukee judges banning AI glasses in court as privacy concerns grow
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: It’s not ‘football’ here, but soccer cases abound
- AI prompts used by experts may be discoverable
- Perspectives: 250th anniversary recalls Declaration decisions
- Perspectives: ‘Pentagon Papers’ case at 55 not far from Near
