Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc.

What sanction did the court impose?

The court denied Mr. Tijerino's motion to compel and motion to deem requests for admission admitted, both without prejudice. The court acknowledged Mr. Tijerino's pro se status and applied liberal construction to his filings, but emphasized the limit, "while pro se filings are construed liberally, a pro se litigant like Plaintiff must still 'abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.'" The good-faith conferral failure was an independent basis for denying the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Spotify had requested attorneys' fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(B); the court did not address that request in the order. No monetary sanction was imposed against Mr. Tijerino in this ruling.

Why does Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc. matter for law firms using AI?

Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc. is an unusual entry in the AI-conduct database because it does not turn on hallucinated citations. Magistrate Judge Currault’s July 7, 2025 order addresses live use of an AI program during the parties’ Rule 37 meet-and-confer, framing it as a good-faith conferral failure that independently defeated the plaintiff’s motion to compel.

Three points make this order interesting beyond the patent docket. First, the AI conduct here is observational rather than archaeological: defense counsel detected the AI use during the conference itself (“Plaintiff apparently used an artificial intelligence program during the conference to respond, causing Defendant to have difficulty understanding his position”), and the court treated that representation as a factual finding rather than requiring forensic confirmation of which tool was used. Second, the order locates the violation in Rule 37(a)(1)‘s good-faith conferral requirement, not in any AI-specific local rule or standing order. The Eastern District of Louisiana, like most districts, has no AI-specific conferral rule; the court used the existing good-faith requirement to discipline the conduct. Third, the order’s treatment of pro se status is calibrated, applying liberal construction while reaffirming that pro se filers must “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts,” tracking the same multi-circuit consensus reflected in Borsody (D. Kan.), Mills (W.D. La.), and Platt (S.D. Ind.).

For a firm engaged in patent litigation or any pro se discovery dispute, the operational point is that meet-and-confer notes should capture observable AI-use indicators (significant pauses before responses, unusually formal phrasing, mismatched questions and answers) when the opposing party’s conduct suggests live AI assistance. Those notes become the factual record the court relies on at the motion stage. Tijerino does not establish a per se rule against AI use during conferral, but it does establish that AI use sufficient to impede the opposing party’s understanding can defeat the good-faith requirement on a Rule 37 motion to compel.