Prompts, privilege & discovery
Tym v. Cerno
The court accepted, for that case, that AI interactions used to prepare filings or hearings do not automatically lose work-product protection.
Protection preserved01
Case background
Material facts
The question arose during a broader discovery dispute over a litigant’s use of generative AI in preparing for the case. The defendants requested a ruling on whether prompts posed to generative-AI products such as ChatGPT and Claude are protected by the work-product doctrine. (ECF 46 at 2.)
02
The decision
The court’s ruling
The court adopted Morgan v. V2X on a limited basis and allowed the party to preserve a work-product objection through a privilege log. It added: “However, if Plaintiff used generative AI to prepare his filings or for hearings in this matter, those interactions are shielded by the work product doctrine.” (Id. at *5.)
Why it matters
What the decision means
Work-product protection depends on whether the interaction was created because of litigation. The party asserting protection must support the claim with a privilege log and case-specific facts.
Limit of the ruling. This was a short, lightly briefed ruling expressly limited to the case before the court.
Primary reading