Morgan v. V2X (AI work product)

What happened

Archie Morgan brought suit against V2X, Inc. without counsel. In discovery the defendant sought information about his use of generative AI systems in preparing his filings, and about whether material designated Confidential under the protective order had been entered into any such system.

The question the motion raised is one the Federal Rules were not drafted for. Rule 26(b)(3) protects documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or its representative. A represented party's AI session sits at some distance from that language. A self-represented party's does not, because, as the court put it, a pro se litigant is simultaneously the party and the advocate.

What the court did

The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It held that Rule 26(b)(3) applies and offers the plaintiff some level of work product protection in connection with his use of AI. It then found that he had not carried his burden of showing that naming the system would reveal his mental impressions or strategy, and that the request for the name of the tool was legitimate and reasonable.

The plaintiff was ordered to disclose, within ten days, the name of any AI platform used with Confidential information, and the defendant was given ten days after that to state what relief it sought. The court also entered an amended protective order barring any party or authorized recipient from entering Confidential Information into an AI platform unless the provider is contractually prohibited from storing or using inputs to train or improve its model, and from disclosing inputs to any third party except where disclosure is essential to delivering the service.

That protective-order language is the part most likely to be copied. It does not ask whether a system is open or enterprise. It asks what the provider has contractually promised, which is a question with a documentary answer.

Where it stands

The order is a magistrate judge's discovery ruling. No objection under Rule 72(a) and no later ruling on the point were located as of September 28, 2026.

Its significance is larger than its posture. This is the decision the later cases argue from. Tate Group Automotive v. Legacy Automotive Capital adopted its reasoning, alongside Warner v. Gilbarco, in sustaining work product over a party's ChatGPT conversations. Tym v. Cerno adopted it expressly. United States v. Heppner reached the opposite result on a represented defendant's Claude documents, and Shealy v. Seaside Investments reached the opposite result where the AI use was by a party's partner rather than at counsel's direction. A reader tracing the split should start here.

The obligation it engaged

The amended protective order is Clause 6, custody and confidentiality, written as a court order rather than as professional guidance. It requires the party to establish, before material is submitted, what leaves the environment and who retains it, and it makes the provider's contractual terms the test.

The order to name the platform engages Clause 7, contemporaneous record. A party who kept no note of which system was used cannot answer the question ten days later from memory with any confidence. The record is what makes the disclosure cheap; its absence is what makes it hazardous.

Sources

• AI Discovery Database (Damien Charlotin) · September 28, 2026
  Morgan v. V2X, Inc.

What could not be confirmed

The docket suffix SKC-MDB indicates a district judge and a magistrate judge; only the magistrate judge is named in the order text read. Whether a Rule 72(a) objection was filed was not determined; CourtListener is not retrievable by the method used here.