By Bill Hartzer · Published · How this site is researched
What happened
Littiece Jones sued Delta Air Lines and appeared without counsel. At her deposition on January 8, 2026, she appeared to be reading from her screen while answering questions. Asked about it, she acknowledged that she had an artificial intelligence platform open, and that the platform was ChatGPT.
She also refused to answer certain questions on attorney-client privilege grounds, although no attorney was present on her behalf.
What the court did
The court instructed Jones that she could not use "ChatGPT or any other AI platform, any other person, any other anything to assist [her] in answering questions that are posed to [her] during [her] deposition."
The framing is worth noting. The court did not create a special rule for artificial intelligence. It placed the system in the same category as another person, which is the category a deposition has always excluded. A deposition takes the witness's own answers.
The court also ruled that Jones could not withhold answers on attorney-client privilege grounds, because no attorney was representing her.
Where it stands
The order was entered April 22, 2026. No later ruling revisiting the point was located as of September 17, 2026.
The obligation it engaged
This entry sits on the site because the fact pattern will reach experts, not because a litigant appearing without counsel did something unusual. A deposition is given remotely more often than not, and nothing on the screen is visible to the examiner.
The conduct engaged Clause 2 of the Standard, non-delegation. The clause says the opinion, its basis, its limitations and the decision to render it are the expert's alone. Testimony is the moment that obligation is tested directly, with no report to stand behind and no opportunity to go back and check. An expert consulting a system between the question and the answer is not giving his own opinion, he is relaying one, and the record will not show which.
Clause 1, sequence, is engaged in its plainest form. The clause exists to keep the expert's conclusion ahead of the system. At a deposition there is no room for the sequence to run at all: the conclusion is due in the next sentence.
Sources
- Justia · April 22, 2026
Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-11224, Document 124 - CourtListener · April 22, 2026
Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. - Damien Charlotin · September 17, 2026
AI discovery cases database
What could not be confirmed
The order itself was not opened. The quoted instruction and the account of the deposition are taken from the Justia summary of Document 124 and from a case database. Whether the instruction originated with the district judge or at a discovery hearing before a magistrate judge was not confirmed.
About this entry
The primary document had not been located when this entry was checked, so it rests on the reporting listed above. The entry for Jones v. Delta Air Lines records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 17, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under avatars and AI in the courtroom. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].