An expert may see AI as a faster way to find the right documents. Opposing counsel may see the prompts as a map of how the expert built the universe of evidence. That tension is at the center of Conservation L. Found., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., No. 3:21-cv-00933 (VDO), ECF No. 970 (D. Conn. May 18, 2026) (Farrish, M.J.).
There, an expert and her research assistant used generative AI to narrow a large document production before the expert completed her analysis. Defendants moved to compel, seeking in part the methods the expert used to cull the production. The court concluded that the process used to reduce the document set was part of the expert’s methodology — and, therefore, fair ground for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).
The plaintiff said the expert had used search terms, not prompts, and that all responsive terms had already been produced. The court recognized that a movant needs evidence, and not just suspicion that a party has failed to make a complete production. But, here, the research assistant’s declaration referred to the use of “prompts.” The court viewed that as an evidence-backed reason to require more than the plaintiff’s assurance that nothing else existed.
The court ordered plaintiff to serve revised discovery responses that either disclosed any additional prompts or queries used by the expert or her team — or formally confirmed, after a diligent search, that none existed. The court cautioned that plaintiff could be sanctioned if that representation was later shown to be untrue.
The order is stayed while the district judge considers the plaintiff’s objection, so this remains a developing issue. The operative order also expressly addressed prompts and queries; it did not command production of every AI output.
Still, the practical message is difficult to miss.