Judge blocks subpoena for ChatGPT records in lender’s lawsuit

A New York judge has quashed a subpoena that sought to crack open a defendant’s entire ChatGPT history, ruling that the AI interactions amounted to protected work product. The decision, handed down by Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Rhonda E. Fischer, is one of the first state-level rulings to apply the work-product doctrine to generative AI usage in legal preparation.

The case, Assini v. Hayward, involves a dispute among lending entities. But the fight over ChatGPT records may end up being more consequential than the underlying lawsuit itself.

What happened

The plaintiffs in the case, Fred Assini along with lending firms First Rehab Lending LLC and Alpha Tech Lending LLC, issued a subpoena demanding comprehensive access to defendant John Recchio’s ChatGPT account. They wanted to see every prompt and every output related to his litigation filings.

Recchio, who is representing himself without an attorney (known as proceeding “pro se”), pushed back. He argued that his conversations with ChatGPT were part of his case preparation, essentially the digital equivalent of scribbling notes on a legal pad or brainstorming strategy with a colleague.

Justice Fischer agreed. The court determined that Recchio’s ChatGPT interactions fell squarely under work-product protection, a legal doctrine that shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery by the opposing side. The subpoena was fully quashed, and OpenAI was not mandated to turn over any records.

Why this matters beyond the courtroom

The plaintiffs had pointed to U.S. v. Heppner, a federal criminal case that had established a different framework for discovery disputes involving AI-generated content. Justice Fischer drew a clear line, distinguishing that federal criminal precedent from the civil context at hand.

The decision also referenced New York’s 22 NYCRR Section 161, a regulation governing AI utilization in litigation. That rule establishes guardrails for how attorneys and litigants should use AI tools in court filings, emphasizing the need for cautious and transparent reliance on the technology.

The underlying dispute involves derivative claims among members of Alpha Tech Lending LLC. Recchio was not a law firm with a team of associates. He was a person representing himself, using the tools available to him. The court’s willingness to extend work-product protection to that scenario matters.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.