In White v. Walmart, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01120-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2026), Indiana Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, stating that “Artificial intelligence can be a useful discovery tool. However,… AI is not a substitute for attorneys and litigants exercising independent judgment and oversight in the discovery process”, ordered Plaintiff to “supplement her discovery responses by April 27, 2026.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case involving Plaintiff allegations that Defendant Walmart wrongfully terminated her in retaliation for making a worker’s compensation claim, Discovery requests were served by the Defendant in July 2025, and although responses were provided the following month, Walmart maintained that those responses were incomplete. Compounding the issue, Plaintiff’s original counsel withdrew and new counsel entered the case, but the discovery deficiencies persisted.

The key issue in this ruling arose when Plaintiff’s counsel raised objections to Defendant’s discovery responses. After review, Judge Baker determined that these objections were not the product of independent legal analysis. Instead, he found that counsel had “uploaded Defendant’s discovery responses into an AI program, asked AI to identify insufficient responses, and copied and pasted the results” into an email sent to both opposing counsel and the Court.

Judge Baker made clear that reliance on AI without independent verification is improper. Citing prior case law, he reiterated that “the use of AI platforms is not itself problematic,” but “[parties must vet] any factual and legal references generated by AI…Before an attorney raises a discovery dispute, that attorney must independently consider any discovery deficiencies identified by AI.”

Continuing, he said: “Plaintiff’s AI-generated list of discovery deficiencies claims that Defendant’s answer to every interrogatory is deficient, without any consideration of whether the asserted deficiencies are material or otherwise warrant additional discussion or supplementation. The exercise of human discretion is needed to appropriately narrow the dispute and identify what discovery supplementation may be needed to move the case forward. Plaintiff’s counsel has taken a perilous shortcut around his responsibilities as a trained legal professional.”

Judge Baker also found: “By relying exclusively on AI to identify and discuss potential deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses, and then merely copying and pasting these results to an email he sent to Defendant’s counsel and to the Court, Plaintiff’s counsel also has failed to confer in good faith before bringing the alleged deficiencies to the Court’s attention.”

Continuing, he said: “Although Plaintiff did not satisfy the meet and confer requirement, Defendant did. Shockingly, Defendant is still awaiting proper responses to discovery served in July 2025. As noted above, after Plaintiff retained new counsel, Defendant proposed a March 23, 2026, conference call to discuss the problems in Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Despite confirming his availability for the call, Plaintiff’s counsel inexplicably declined Defendant’s calendar invitation without providing an explanation or proposing an alternative date. That is when Defendant understandably sought the Court’s intervention.”

Judge Baker also added this: “There are obvious deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses. More than eight months have passed since Defendant served discovery on Plaintiff, yet Plaintiff has not even provided signed interrogatory responses. Nor has Plaintiff identified medical providers from whom she sought treatment in connection with her alleged injuries. These are two of the more glaring discovery deficiencies, but Plaintiff’s responses raise numerous other concerns.”

In noting once again that AI is not a substitute for good lawyering, Judge Baker added and ruled: “Nor does exclusive reliance on AI satisfy counsel’s obligation to meet and confer in good faith before asking the Court to wade into a discovery dispute. Plaintiff shall supplement her discovery responses by April 27, 2026.”

So, what do you think? Are you surprised we even need a ruling that AI is not a substitute for good lawyering? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today. Hat tip to Michael Berman for his previous coverage of this case.

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.