As Cimplifi discusses in this post, entering into protective orders to restrict AI training on produced data is a good idea. Here’s why.

In their latest post titled (wait for it!) Stepping Up to the Plate: Protective Orders to Restrict AI Training on Produced Data (available here), Cimplifi discusses that rather than imposing a blanket prohibition on AI, a well-drafted protective order should distinguish between permissible and impermissible uses, recognizing that AI can provide significant efficiencies for tasks such as document review, summarization, organization, and drafting when used responsibly. Any use of AI should remain subject to applicable procedural rules, court orders, and the ethical obligations of counsel, including the duty to supervise technology-assisted work and protect confidential client information.

One key consideration for protective orders is the distinction between closed AI systems and open AI systems. Closed AI systems that operate within secure environments and are subject to contractual, technical, and administrative safeguards. These protections make them typically appropriate for processing protected information, provided there’s a reasonable basis to conclude that confidential materials will not be used to train models, improve algorithms, or become accessible to unauthorized users.

So, what are three notable cases regarding the use of protective orders for their opponent’s use of public AI? And what are two examples of AI protective order language to consider when modeling your own AI protective orders? Find out here, it’s only one click! No protection needed! 😉

So, what do you think? Is your organization applying best practices for AI ethics and defensibility in legal practice? 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 batter stepping up to the plate with a robot catcher and a robot umpire behind the plate with fans in the stands behind them”.

Disclosure: Cimplifi is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today

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.