Yesterday, The Sedona Conference Journal announced the publication of the Decision Tree for Evaluating AI-Generated Evidence.
The publication (available here) was developed by leading evidence experts Hon. Paul W. Grimm (ret.), Maura R. Grossman, and Kevin F. Brady. It provides a clear, step-by-step framework for evaluating the authentication and admissibility of AI-generated evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, helping the bench and bar address key challenges such as relevance, validity, reliability, and potential prejudice. It also offers guidance on emerging developments, including proposed FRE 707 and the use of AI-generated evidence without live expert testimony.
The nine-page document includes:
- Role of Judge and Jury – The Preliminary/Critical Importance of FRE 104: Three bullet points discussing what and when the judge must decide (and consider) vs. when the jury must decide.
- Relevance of AI-Generated Evidence: Four questions to determine whether AI-generated evidence is relevant and admissible.
- Authentication of AI-Generated Evidence: Six requirements/considerations for authenticating AI-generated evidence.
- Standard of Proof for AI-Generated Evidence: A statement of what judges and courts should expect for admissibility of AI-generated evidence.
- Practice Pointers Related to AI-Generated Evidence: Nine expectations for those offering AI-generated evidence.
Here’s an example of the first practice pointer to give you a sense of the useful information being provided by the publication:
I remember Kevin, Maura and Judge Grimm walking through a preliminary version of this last year at the Georgetown conference. Excited to see it released! And the cover page (page 3 of the downloaded file) has a colorful picture that includes a cactus – a “decision tree”! See what they did there? 😉
Grounded in established evidentiary principles and modern AI realities, the Decision Tree for Evaluating AI-Generated Evidence strivesto equip litigators, judges, and in-house counsel with a structured, defensible approach to navigating this rapidly evolving area.
So, what do you think? Have you ever had a case involving AI-generated evidence? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Image created using DALL-E 3, using the term “robot lawyer wearing a suit in the desert looking at a cactus”.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.