Morgan v. V2X, Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · D. Colo. · Colorado bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff used consumer AI tools on CONFIDENTIAL discovery; V2X moved to amend the protective order to bar that use.
Consequence
Court barred uploads of CONFIDENTIAL discovery to consumer AI absent training/disclosure/deletion safeguards; platform disclosure ordered.
Lesson
AI-platform identity is not work product. Confidential discovery cannot be uploaded to consumer AI without contractual safeguards.
Verified May 1, 2026
- Citation
- Morgan v. V2X, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01991 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2026) (Dominguez Braswell, Mag. J.)
- Decided
- March 30, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Archie Morgan used consumer AI platforms to process material designated CONFIDENTIAL under the protective order in his employment discrimination suit against V2X, Inc. Defendant moved to amend the protective order to bar AI use and to compel disclosure of which platforms had been used. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell granted in part: a pro se litigant's use of AI to prepare for litigation is protected work product under FRCP 26(b)(3), but the identity of the AI platform is not. Confidential discovery cannot be uploaded to an AI platform absent contractual safeguards on training, third-party disclosure, and deletion. Plaintiff was ordered to disclose the name of any platform used with confidential material within 10 days.
- AI tool:
- Consumer AI platforms (specific tools to be disclosed by plaintiff)
What sanction did the court impose?
No sanctions. ECF 65 (order on motion to amend protective order) and ECF 66 (amended protective order) issued March 30, 2026. The amended protective order requires written documentation of the contractual safeguards (no training on inputs; no third-party disclosure except as essential to service delivery; deletion on request) before any party uploads CONFIDENTIAL material to an AI platform.
Why does Morgan v. V2X, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Morgan v. V2X is not a sanctions case but it belongs in this tracker because it is the first federal magistrate-level articulation of the AI-platform-identity rule: the choice of tool is not protected work product even though the litigant’s mental impressions remain so. For Colorado firms and any practitioner litigating in federal court, the order supplies a template for AI-specific protective-order provisions and a clear baseline that consumer AI tools are presumptively non-compliant with confidentiality obligations unless contracted enterprise terms remove training, third-party-disclosure, and retention as risks.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Add an AI-tool clause to every protective order: ban consumer AI uploads of confidential material without enumerated contractual safeguards (no-training, no-third-party-disclosure, deletion-on-request).
- Maintain written documentation of vendor contractual protections for any AI tool used with confidential discovery.
- Distinguish in policy between (a) protected mental impressions / work product and (b) the operational identity of tools used; only the former is shielded.
- Treat consumer-tier AI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude consumer plans) as presumptively non-compliant with confidentiality obligations absent contracted enterprise terms.
Sources
Primary sources
- F. Supp. 3d reporter pin not yet assigned; cite to docket only.