{"id":905966,"date":"2026-08-04T16:55:21","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:55:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905966"},"modified":"2026-08-04T16:55:25","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T22:55:25","slug":"artificial-intelligence-how-ai-is-reshaping-litigation-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/artificial-intelligence-how-ai-is-reshaping-litigation-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Artificial Intelligence or Artificial Interference?: How AI is Reshaping Litigation for Better and Worse, Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Matthew E. Feinberg and Adel Mansour | Piliero Mazza<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0the first installment of\u00a0our blog\u00a0series,\u00a0Artificial Intelligence or Artificial\u00a0Interference?:\u00a0How AI is Reshaping Litigation for Better and Worse<\/a>,\u00a0we wrote\u00a0about how artificial intelligence\u00a0(AI)\u00a0is beginning to have an impact\u00a0on litigation\u00a0and various pitfalls created by reliance on AI in the legal context.\u00a0Late last year, a noteworthy\u00a0case brought those concerns to fruition\u00a0after\u00a0two plaintiffs introduced AI-generated and materially altered\u00a0exhibits as \u201cevidence.\u201d\u00a0To be sure, artificial intelligence has its benefits, but, as\u00a0Mendones\u00a0v. Cushman and Wakefield, Inc. shows,\u00a0AI presents significant risks, and attorneys and litigants alike must be\u00a0cognizant\u00a0of the impact AI is having throughout the litigation process.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Mendones<\/em>, a case arising out of California state court, Ariel and Maridol Mendones (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) were accused of submitting intentionally false testimony in connection with their motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the court suspected that Plaintiffs submitted 9 different exhibits that were either AI-generated or altered. The court highlighted particular examples. For instance, Plaintiffs submitted a video testimony that purported to be a recording of a woman by the name of Geri Haas. The court concluded that \u201c[t]he accent, cadence, volume, word choice, pauses, gestures, and facial expression, among other characteristics, of the person depicted in [the real exhibit] are vastly different from those demonstrated by the \u2018person\u2019 depicted in [the generative AI exhibits]. The \u2018person\u2019 depicted in [the generative AI exhibits] lack expressiveness, are monotone, do not pause at moments where pauses are expected, use odd words [sic] choices, and appear generally robotic. Further, the mouth flap does not match the words being spoken.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs also submitted text messages that the court found to be products of generative AI, or at the very least, materially altered. In fact, it was so obvious to the court that the messages were fabricated, that Plaintiffs\u2019 declaration about the veracity of these messages \u201cstrain[ed] credulity.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

After going through the above examples and more, the court noted that it \u201cremain[ed] suspicious of the other evidentiary submissions,\u201d but that it did not \u201chave the time, funding, or technical expertise to determine the authenticity of Plaintiffs\u2019 statements or conduct a forensic analysis of the suspect evidentiary submissions.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court then finally turned to the appropriate sanction, where it considered three options: (1) monetary penalties, (2) criminal referral, and (3) termination of litigation. Monetary sanctions and referral for criminal prosecution were found to not be appropriate, as the former was too light, and the latter too severe. This resulted in a terminating sanction, i.e., dismissal of the lawsuit, which the court said was \u201cproportional to the harm that Plaintiffs\u2019 misuse of the Court\u2019s processes ha[d] caused.\u201d In its final few remarks, the court made the following clear: it has zero tolerance for AI \u201cevidence.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not-So-Futuristic Applications<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u00a0previously mentioned the possibility that a litigant could offer an AI-generated\u00a0video of a witness\u2019s deposition testimony, noting that\u00a0AI-generated video or audio, complete with synthesized voice, tone, and body language, adds a new layer of complexity and risk\u00a0to the court and to litigants.\u00a0Mendones<\/em>\u00a0makes\u00a0that statement\u00a0almost\u00a0prophetic.\u00a0While AI in its current state\u00a0may not\u00a0fool a court or opposing counsel,\u00a0its mere introduction into an actual\u00a0litigation matter is concerning, particularly because the\u00a0Mendones<\/em>\u00a0court\u00a0recognized that\u00a0it did not have the resources to analyze all potentially fabricated exhibits.\u00a0With increasingly burdened dockets, tight timelines, and pressing deadlines, many courts may be in the same boat. As AI develops, the risk of fabricated evidence being\u00a0submitted, or even admitted, heightens.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no doubt that AI will be used in the court room again, despite all the warnings judges and attorneys alike put forth. As with any new technology, people will push the boundaries to see what they can do and\/or get away with. While the Mendones<\/em> court refused to admit such \u201cevidence,\u201d another court may come to a different conclusion or fail to recognize the AI-generated or -manipulated nature of evidence entirely. Therein lies the risk of allowing AI-generated witness testimony or AI-enhanced evidence in litigation. The ability to use AI to create evidence that does not actually exist moves across the line from artificial intelligence to artificial interference with the opponent\u2019s right to a fair trial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways for Litigants<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n