Privilege & Work Product · November 2026
Villanueva v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't
No. 2:24-cv-00125-ART-DJA, ECF No. 112 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2026)
Nevada federal court holds that an expert's ChatGPT legal case summaries are discoverable, but his prompts, AI-generated deposition outline, and draft-report materials are protected.
Plaintiff's expert testified that he used ChatGPT to research and draft his report, and the magistrate judge ordered production of the entire 40-page history log. The district court granted in part and overruled in part plaintiff's objection to that order.
ChatGPT-generated summaries of excessive-force cases were “facts or data” the expert “considered” under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) and had to be produced, particularly because the log is the only place defendants could look for “hallucinated case citations” or legal standards the expert may have relied upon in reaching his opinion. The expert's prompts, however, were not facts or data, and would reveal his “mental impressions” and theories; his AI-generated deposition outline would reveal his “focus, priorities, or areas of concern”; and ChatGPT output he copied into his report is protected as a draft report under Rule 26(b)(4)(B).
Because “ChatGPT is not a person,” use of the program did not waive any protection, and concerns about the expert's reliance on it could be addressed through impeachment at trial.