Colorado Court Sets AI Discovery Rules in Morgan v. V2X Inc.
A Colorado federal court has issued the first judicial guidance on AI use and confidentiality in discovery.
Why it matters: Legal professionals must now ensure AI platforms meet new confidentiality standards in discovery. This sets an early precedent for managing AI risk and privilege in litigation.
- On March 30, 2026, Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell issued a landmark ruling on AI in discovery.
- Litigants must disclose the specific AI tool used, though their work product remains protected.
- Protective orders now bar using AI platforms with confidential data unless strict contractual safeguards exist.
- The court recognized challenges for pro se litigants but prioritized confidentiality.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado broke new ground on March 30, 2026, in Morgan v. V2X, Inc., when Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell issued a ruling clarifying how artificial intelligence may interact with confidential discovery materials.
- The court held that while a pro se litigant’s use of AI tools to assist with litigation preparation falls under the work product doctrine, the actual identity of the AI tool is not shielded and must be disclosed. (details)
- Judge Braswell modified the protective order to restrict parties from inputting confidential discovery information into AI platforms unless the provider contractually agrees not to use the data for model training, prohibits third-party disclosure (except when operationally necessary), and allows deletion of confidential info on request.
- The court acknowledged that these requirements may put pro se litigants—often reliant on low-cost or free AI tools—at a disadvantage but emphasized that "AI is forcing litigants and courts to confront difficult questions about how and to what extent longstanding protections will apply when parties use AI to assist them in the litigation process."
This ruling signals a shift: legal professionals must re-assess discovery workflows, vet AI vendors for compliance with privacy terms, and prepare for evolving court expectations. The decision also highlights early judicial engagement on the risks and responsibilities of AI in litigation, marking a new compliance landscape for in-house and law firm teams.
For more analysis, see breakdowns at Sidley and JD Supra.
Yes, but: The court noted that strict AI restrictions may disadvantage pro se litigants who lack resources for compliant AI platforms.