In Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-11224 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2026), a case where the plaintiff tried to use ChatGPT in a deposition, Michigan District Judge Susan K. DeClercq dismissed the case with prejudice under both Rule 37(b)(2) and Rule 41(b) due to the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with discovery obligations and court orders.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case involving an employment discrimination action filed by a pro se plaintiff against her employer, the litigation became defined less by the merits of those claims and more by ongoing discovery disputes. Despite the court’s efforts to facilitate the plaintiff’s participation – including granting accommodations tied to her asserted disabilities and extending discovery deadlines multiple times – her compliance with the discovery requests remained incomplete.

Judge DeClercq emphasized that she had taken significant steps to enable the plaintiff to meet her obligations, noting that she had “granted several reasonable discovery accommodations” and repeatedly reminded her “of her obligation to participate in discovery.” Yet even with those accommodations, the plaintiff failed to produce required materials, provide complete interrogatory responses, or execute necessary medical authorizations.

Judge DeClercq did not move immediately to dismissal. Instead, she provided multiple extensions and issued clear, escalating warnings. In a prior order, Judge DeClercq explicitly cautioned that failure to comply would result in dismissal, stating: “if she does not satisfy the discovery obligations… her case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this Court’s discovery orders. This is the last warning Jones will receive.” Judge DeClercq further reinforced that warning, placing the plaintiff “ON NOTICE” that noncompliance during the final discovery extension “will result in dismissal.”

Even after those warnings, discovery deficiencies persisted. The defendant documented extensive gaps in production, including incomplete interrogatory responses, missing documents, and unexecuted authorizations. During her deposition, the plaintiff admitted that she still possessed responsive evidence that had not been produced and could not provide a timeline for completing production. This admission proved critical, as it confirmed that discovery failures were ongoing even after the close of discovery.

This was also a case where the plaintiff tried to use ChatGPT in a deposition. During questioning, the plaintiff acknowledged using ChatGPT to assist her in responding to deposition questions. Judge DeClercq intervened during an emergency status conference and issued a clear directive: the plaintiff could not “use ChatGPT or any other AI platform… to assist [her] in answering questions that are posed to [her] during [her] deposition.” Judge DeClercq also rejected her attempt to invoke attorney-client privilege in that context, explaining that she could not “refuse to answer questions on the grounds of attorney/client privilege because there [was] no attorney present.”

While the AI-related issue was notable, Judge DeClercq’s ultimate decision to dismiss the case turned on the four-factor test applied under Rules 37 and 41: willfulness, prejudice, prior warnings, and the availability of lesser sanctions. On the first factor, Judge DeClercq found the plaintiff’s conduct to be willful, emphasizing that she had been given “repeated opportunities to comply” but still failed to meet her obligations. Judge DeClercq rejected her argument that partial participation – such as answering some deposition questions or producing some materials – was sufficient, observing that such efforts did not negate her broader pattern of noncompliance.

On the second factor, prejudice, Judge DeClercq found that the defendant had been significantly harmed by the delays and deficiencies. The defendant had “incurred significant time and expense filing motions, attending hearings, and repeatedly attempting to secure basic discovery,” yet still lacked the information needed to fully develop its defenses. This, she noted, is precisely the type of prejudice that supports dismissal.

The third factor – prior warning – strongly favored dismissal, as Judge DeClercq had repeatedly and explicitly warned the plaintiff of the consequences of noncompliance over the course of nearly a year. And on the fourth factor, Judge DeClercq concluded that no lesser sanction would be effective. She noted that she had already attempted lesser measures, including admonishments and accommodations, without success. Monetary sanctions were also deemed ineffective given the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.

Having found that all four factors weighed in favor of dismissal, Judge DeClercq concluded that dismissal with prejudice was not only appropriate but necessary. As she explained, “dismissal of Jones’s case with prejudice is warranted… because Jones has repeatedly and willfully failed to engage in discovery and comply with this Court’s orders, which has prejudiced Delta.” Judge DeClercq further emphasized that “no lesser sanctions would be appropriate or effective.”

Accordingly, Judge DeClercq granted the defendant’s motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and denied all remaining motions as moot.

So, what do you think? Do you think we’ll see more cases where parties try to use GenAI chatbots in depositions? 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.