Prompts, privilege & discovery
Shealy v. Seaside Investments, LLC
A client’s partner independently used ChatGPT to draft litigation material. The resulting prompts and drafts were not protected work product.
Production ordered01
Case background
Material facts
A represented plaintiff shared dispute documents with a romantic partner. The partner, acting without direction from counsel, uploaded them to ChatGPT and emailed AI-generated drafts back to the plaintiff.
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court ordered unredacted production. Neither the partner nor ChatGPT was acting as counsel’s representative, counsel had not directed the work, and the material did not reveal counsel’s mental impressions.
Why it matters
What the decision means
Work-product protection turns on who directed the work and why it was created. Material produced independently by a client’s informal helper does not become work product merely because it concerns the litigation.
Limit of the ruling. The holding rests on unusually specific facts involving a represented client, an independent third party, and work not requested by counsel.
Primary reading