D. Colo.: Standing Order Requiring Certification Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Fi…

What the rule requires

Magistrate Judge Prose’s standing order is the narrowest of the four published D. Colo. judge-specific AI rules in scope. It applies only to specified motion types: every motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, every motion under Rule 56, every motion to amend a pleading, and any opposed motion (including the corresponding response and reply). The certification is in addition to the standard Certification of Conferral.

The certification’s content tracks the now-familiar D. Colo. template: either no AI use, or human-verified AI use with citation accuracy attested using print reporters or traditional legal databases. The compliance penalty is striking, similar to Judge Crews’s order, but only for the enumerated motion types.

In a referral posture (where the magistrate judge handles a discrete matter referred by a district judge), the order applies only to “nondispositive, opposed motions” referred to chambers. This narrows the scope further: in a referral case, the order doesn’t reach unopposed motions or non-referred motions, but does reach all opposed nondispositive matters that come before chambers.

The four D. Colo. judge-specific AI rules now form a recognizable spectrum: Wang (every filing), Crews (every substantive motion + responses + replies), Prose (specified motion types and opposed motions in consent cases, opposed nondispositive in referral), and Braswell (guidance, no certification). Counsel practicing before D. Colo. should pre-check which judges have jurisdiction at scheduling-conference stage to confirm the applicable disclosure regime.

R&G data corrections

R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2024-10-21. The order PDF is signed and dated October 21, 2024 by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on the face of the document. No correction needed.

Quotable language

“In addition to a Certification of Conferral, in cases before this court in which the parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, every motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, or to amend a pleading, and any opposed motion (to include the corresponding response and reply), shall contain a Certification regarding the use, or non-use, of generative artificial intelligence (AI) (such as ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, Google Bard, etc.) in preparing the filing, including any proposed amended pleadings.”

“The preparer of the filing must certify either that (a) no portion of the filing was drafted by AI, or that (b) any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human being) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human being for accuracy using print reporters or traditional legal databases and attesting that the legal citations are to actual existing cases or cited authority.”

“The court will strike any filing from a party who fails to include this certification in the above-mentioned motions.”

Primary source

Standing Order Requiring Certification Re: Use of AI in Filings (Prose, M.J.), cod.uscourts.gov