Prompts, privilege & discovery
Cifuentes v. Sid Tool Co., Inc.
The court denied discovery requests concerning a self-represented plaintiff’s alleged AI use because the defendant failed to adequately support them. It separately reminded the plaintiff that Rule 11 applies to AI-assisted filings.
AI discovery requests denied01
Case background
Material facts
Sid Tool moved to compel discovery from Alexander R. Cifuentes, including requests about alleged AI use. The court heard the motion alongside his request for deposition accommodations on September 17, 2026.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The September 18 order memorialized the hearing rulings. Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price denied the AI requests for reasons stated at the hearing and inadequate support. The court compelled limited medical discovery and tax returns, but denied the defendant’s requested motion-to-compel sanctions. It also stated that AI use was permitted, with the plaintiff responsible for its risks and compliance with procedural rules.
Why it matters
What the decision means
A request to discover AI use needs a supported basis. Permission to use AI does not remove responsibility for a filing’s contents.
Limit of the ruling. This discovery order does not establish an AI privilege or categorical bar to AI discovery. Additional reasoning was given orally. See pages 2–3 and 9.
Primary reading