Prompts, privilege & discovery
Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC
After reviewing ChatGPT conversations in camera, the court protected most of them but ordered selected pages and upload information produced.
Mixed production01
Case background
Material facts
The defendant sought ChatGPT “conversations” from the plaintiff’s principal, arguing that work-product protection does not extend to a nonlawyer’s chats with an AI tool or, alternatively, that use of AI waived any potentially applicable privilege. (Slip op. at 1.)
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court followed Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. and Morgan v. V2X, Inc., reasoning that work-product protection is ordinarily waived only by disclosure to an adversary or in circumstances that substantially increase the likelihood an adversary will obtain the material. Morgan, 2026 WL 864223, at *5. It also relied on Warner, which rejected a waiver theory based solely on use of ChatGPT unless the material had been disclosed to an adversary or was likely to reach one. The court distinguished United States v. Heppner because Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5 protects material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or trial by or for a party. Most chats qualified as litigation-preparation work product, but specified pages did not. The court required identification by Bates number of discovery material shared with ChatGPT and suggested an AI-specific protective-order amendment.
Why it matters
What the decision means
The court reviewed each AI chat rather than accept an all-or-nothing protection claim. Uploading produced discovery raises a separate confidentiality issue even when the resulting conversation qualifies as work product.
Limit of the ruling. The ruling is an informal minute entry that says it is not intended as a final or appellate order.
Primary reading