Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-11224 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2026)

Why This Case Is Important

This decision recognizes critical boundaries for the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in active litigation. Using AI tools for real-time deposition answers crosses ethical boundaries and violates discovery obligations. While not the grounds for terminating sanctions here, this case reinforces emerging boundaries for the use of AI during discovery and litigation.

Overview of Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

In Jones v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., a pro se plaintiff sued her employer alleging employment discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. Over nearly a year, the litigation was derailed by the plaintiff’s persistent discovery delays and incomplete production of evidence. Seeking to facilitate her participation, the court granted multiple extensions and reasonable discovery accommodations tied to her health conditions. However, plaintiff continually failed to provide complete responses, prompting the court to issue a final warning placing her "ON NOTICE" that further noncompliance would result in dismissal.

The breaking point occurred during her virtual deposition. Delta’s counsel noticed plaintiff reading from her screen, and plaintiff admitted to having ChatGPT open on her device. When asked if she was feeding information into the AI platform as the deposition progressed, plaintiff refused to answer, improperly citing "attorney-client privilege." Following an emergency status conference, the court halted the AI usage.

Delta subsequently moved to dismiss the case due to plaintiff's cumulative discovery misconduct. The court relied on the four-factor test applied under  FRCP37(b)(2) and 41(b)to evaluate whether dismissal was warranted: willfulness, prejudice, prior warnings, and the availability of lesser sanctions.

Case Law Ruling

Deposition AI Assistance Prohibited

The court strictly barred real-timereliance on any AI platform during active testimony. Judge DeClercq issued aclear directive that the plaintiff could not “use ChatGPT or any other AI platform… to assist [her] in answering questions that are posed to [her] during [her] deposition.” The court rejected plaintiff’s attorney-client privilegeclaim, noting that there was no attorney present on plaintiff’s behalf andplaintiff was not an attorney herself.

Willful Misconduct Prejudiced Defendant

Evaluating plaintiff’s continuing discovery misconduct under Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b), the court found plaintiff's behavior entirely willful. She had been given “repeated opportunities to comply” but still withheld basic evidence. This prejudiced Delta, which “incurred significant time and expense filing motions, attending hearings, and repeatedly attempting to secure basic discovery” needed to fully develop its legal defenses.

Terminating Sanctions Fully Justified

Because plaintiff’s conduct was willful, Delta was prejudiced, plaintiff ignored explicit warnings, and no lesser sanction would be effective, the court determined that dismissal with prejudice was the only effective remedy. The plaintiff had been placed on notice that noncompliance with discovery obligations would end her case. Concluding that “no lesser sanctions would be appropriate or effective,” the court dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiff “repeatedly and willfully failed to engage in discovery and comply with this Court’s orders.”

Expert Analysis - Patricia Antezana, Counsel, ReedSmith – Although the court dismissed the case because of plaintiff’s “ongoing, year-long refusal to meaningfully engage in discovery and to comply with Court orders,” plaintiff’s use of ChatGPT during her deposition added to the history of discovery disputes in this case.  Although courts have determined that the use of generative AI may be shielded by the work product doctrine under certain circumstances, the court in Jones was clear that its use to assist in answering questions during a deposition will not be tolerated.

Closing Tip

Legal teams must explicitly address generative AI boundaries in their ESI protocols (discovery plans) and deposition ground rules. It’s imperative for legal teams to ensure witnesses are well-prepared for depositions. To align your practice with current federal standards, download Exterro’s Guide to the FRCP.

This alert is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.

‍

‍