Brian M. Stolar 1998 Family Trust v. American General Life Insurance Company
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · D.N.J. · New Jersey bar guidance
Conduct
Here the discovery confidentiality order, signed by counsel for both sides, includes a paragraph conditioning AI-tool use of Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only material.
Consequence
AI use with protected material allowed only after written confirmation to the producer on access and retention; destruction certified at case end; noncompliant tools barred.
Lesson
Here the AI terms were written into the protective order, so the receiving side's duties turn on how its chosen tool handles access, retention, and deletion.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Brian M. Stolar 1998 Family Trust v. American General Life Insurance Co., No. 2:23-cv-03613-SRC-MAH, Confidentiality Order (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2025) (Hammer, M.J.), ECF No. 28
- Decided
- January 28, 2025
Summary
This entry records a case-specific AI provision, not a sanction. In a civil action between the Brian M. Stolar 1998 Family Trust and American General Life Insurance Company, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer entered a two-tier Confidentiality Order covering "Confidential" and "Attorneys' Eyes Only" discovery material. Paragraph 8 governs use of that material in an "artificial intelligence tool," defined as an "AI Tool." The material "may only be used" in an AI Tool that the receiving party "first confirms in writing to the producing party" (1) restricts access to the individuals listed in paragraphs 4 and 6, and (2) either does not retain the material in a way available to the tool's "developers, providers or operators" "whether as stored data or changes to code or algorithmic learning or otherwise," or is used solely for this action and decommissioned, with the material erased, after it ends. The tool must also either be "stateless" or, if not, be limited to authorized individuals and then reset or deleted. The order bears the signatures of counsel for both parties dated January 27, 2025, and the docket lists a stipulation filed that day (ECF No. 27, not reviewed). No party is accused of misusing AI.
- AI tool:
- No tool at issue; the order's AI paragraph names ChatGPT only as an example ("any AI Tool (e.g., ChatGPT)") of a tool that may not be used with protected material unless it meets the order's conditions
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
The court entered the Confidentiality Order on January 28, 2025 (ECF No. 28), signed "s/Michael A. Hammer" and dated by hand "1/28/25." Beyond the written-confirmation conditions, paragraph 8 provides that the receiving party "must also make reasonably sure it can delete all Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only material, and any information derived therefrom, from the AI Tool upon termination of this action," and that its certification of compliance with the order's "Final Disposition requirements" "shall also certify the destruction of all Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only material submitted into any AI Tool." The paragraph closes with a bar: protected material "shall not, under any circumstances, be used in or with any AI Tool (e.g., ChatGPT) or any other substantially similar tool, model, software, or application that does not comply with the above requirements; and any such use that does not comply is unauthorized and strictly prohibited." The order imposes no sanction and makes no finding about any party's AI use or about any product. No other paragraph of the order requires a certification; paragraph 20 imposes return-or-destroy obligations without one. Paragraph 18 preserves each party's right to move for modification of, or relief from, any of its terms.
Why does Brian M. Stolar 1998 Family Trust v. American General Life Insurance Company matter for law firms using AI?
This is a discovery confidentiality order, not a sanctions ruling. Judge Hammer entered a two-tier order with “Confidential” and “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designations, lists of permitted recipients in paragraphs 4 and 6, a challenge procedure, and return-or-destroy obligations at the end of the case. Paragraph 8 adds a set of conditions on putting that material into an “AI Tool.” The order bears the signatures of counsel for both sides, dated the day before entry, and it does not say who drafted paragraph 8 or whether the court uses the same language in other cases.
The paragraph is built as a gate rather than a ban. Use is permitted only in a tool that the receiving party “first confirms in writing to the producing party” satisfies two cumulative conditions (access limited to the paragraph 4 and 6 recipients, and either no retention available to “developers, providers or operators of the AI Tool” or case-only use followed by decommissioning and erasure) and one of two alternatives: the tool is “stateless,” meaning it will not be “modified, improved, or changed” by the use and will not keep the material “in raw form or through any tokenization, embedding, or through any other method,” or, if not stateless, it is limited to authorized individuals and “either permanently reset to a default state that existed prior to the receipt of Confidential and Attorneys’ Eyes Only material or securely deleted in its entirety.” The order names ChatGPT only as an example (“any AI Tool (e.g., ChatGPT)”) within a prohibition that covers any tool “that does not comply with the above requirements”; it makes no finding about any product.
Two features place the work on the receiving side. The confirmation runs to the producing party, not the court, and the order sets no form for it beyond “in writing.” And the closing obligations run to the end of the case: the receiving party “must also make reasonably sure it can delete” the material “and any information derived therefrom” from the tool, and its end-of-case certification “shall also certify the destruction” of material submitted into any AI Tool. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that terms of this kind, once entered, are court-ordered obligations; paragraph 18 leaves any party free to move to modify them.
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.
- Document the written confirmation this order requires before any AI use of Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only material. Under paragraph 8, protected material may be used only in an AI Tool that the receiving party "first confirms in writing to the producing party" meets the access and retention conditions.
- Review AI vendors' retention and training terms against the order's tests. Paragraph 8 asks whether the tool retains material "whether as stored data or changes to code or algorithmic learning or otherwise" and whether it is "stateless", and sets decommissioning, reset, or deletion requirements when it is not.
- Verify that the end-of-case certification can cover AI tools. Paragraph 8 provides that the receiving party's certification of compliance "shall also certify the destruction of all Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only material submitted into any AI Tool." The order has no paragraph headed Final Disposition, and paragraph 20's return-or-destroy terms do not themselves call for a certification.
- Consider who may access a tool under the order. Paragraph 8 limits access to the individuals listed in paragraphs 4 and 6, which include outside counsel, in-house counsel (for Attorneys' Eyes Only material, only in-house counsel designated in advance), the parties themselves for Confidential material, experts who sign Exhibit A or another agreed form, and retained litigation vendors.
Sources
Primary sources
- Whether the order was entered on a formal stipulation: the order is titled "Confidentiality Order" (the docket text calls it a "Discovery Confidentiality Order"), carries the /s/ signatures of counsel for both parties dated January 27, 2025, and CourtListener's docket lists a "Stipulation" as ECF No. 27 filed January 27, 2025. ECF No. 27 itself was not read, so the entry says the order was signed by both counsel rather than calling it a stipulated order.
- Who drafted paragraph 8 (the parties, or the court as a chambers form) is not stated in the order. Whether Judge Hammer enters the same AI language in other cases was not checked; this entry treats the provision as a one-case directive only.