D. Nev.: First Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices, Section III (Artificial Int…
Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, U.S. Magistrate Judge · U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- First Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices, Section III (Artificial Intelligence) (Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, D. Nev.)
- Order date
- January 5, 2026
Summary
Counsel or pro se party may use AI to draft documents or process discovery consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Standing Order, and any other applicable legal or ethical obligations.
What does the order require?
- Counsel or pro se party may use AI to draft documents or process discovery consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Standing Order, and any other applicable legal or ethical obligations.
- Certification of AI Use: All filings must include the certification 'I certify that Artificial Intelligence was [used / not used] to prepare the foregoing document.' The certification must be included immediately above the signature line. Failure to include the certification may result in sanctions.
- Citations to Authorities: A pro se party's or counsel's failure to confirm or double-check the accuracy, veracity, or even existence of a case or legal citation (or assertion of fact) created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions. All citations and factual assertions must be corroborated and comply with FRCP 11 and Local Rule IA 7-3.
- Protective Orders: Parties are strongly encouraged to address AI use in proposed protective orders, including protocols on permissible AI systems (closed vs. open) and limitations on processing discovery materials with personal-data identifiers, confidential material, or trade secrets.
- Sealed Documents and Personal-Data Identifiers May Not Be Uploaded to Open AI Systems: Counsel and parties are prohibited from uploading onto any open AI system any filed documents that have been filed under seal or that contain personal-data identifiers listed in LR IC 6-1(a)(1)-(6). Violation may result in sanctions.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the rule requires
Magistrate Judge Couvillier’s First Amended Standing Order has a four-part AI section that distinguishes it from the binary use/no-use chambers rules common in the federal trial-court bench. The rule explicitly permits AI use for drafting and discovery processing, then layers on four substantive obligations: (1) a binary use/no-use certification immediately above the signature line, (2) verification of all AI-generated citations and factual assertions under FRCP 11 and Local Rule IA 7-3, (3) a strong recommendation that protective orders address AI protocols (closed vs. open systems, discovery-processing limits for personal-data identifiers and trade secrets), and (4) a flat prohibition on uploading sealed documents or filings with personal-data identifiers to open AI systems.
The fourth provision is the doctrinally distinctive part. Most federal chambers AI rules focus on hallucination risk in citations; Couvillier’s rule extends to data-leakage risk in confidential filings. Counsel using cloud-hosted AI tools (any open system where source code, learning materials, or underlying models may be publicly accessible) cannot upload sealed materials or anything containing the LR IC 6-1(a)(1)-(6) personal-data identifiers. This functionally requires counsel to use closed-model or self-hosted AI systems for any work touching protected client information.
The protective-order recommendation (Provision 3) is the practitioner-facing innovation. By signaling that the court expects parties to address AI in protective orders, Couvillier is shifting the default expectation from “AI is silently allowed” to “AI use is governed by the protective order, including system-type and discovery-processing limits.”
R&G data corrections
R&G’s tracker dates this entry 2026-01-05, which matches the file-name date stamp on the PDF (Revised-Final-Standing-Order-010526-v6). No correction needed.
Quotable language
“Any counsel or pro se party may use AI to draft documents or process discovery consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.), this Standing Order, and any other applicable legal or ethical obligations.”
“All filings must include the following certification from counsel or pro se party disclosing whether or not AI was used to prepare or assist in preparing such filing: ‘I certify that Artificial Intelligence was [used / not used] to prepare the foregoing document.’ The certification must be included immediately above the signature line of the counsel or pro se party signing the document.”
“A pro se party or a counsel’s failure to confirm or double-check the accuracy, veracity, or even existence of a case or legal citation (or assertion of fact) created by an AI tool is grounds for potential sanctions.”
“Counsel and parties are prohibited from uploading onto any open AI system, where the source code, learning materials, and underlying models may be publicly accessible, any filed documents which: (a) have been filed under seal; or (b) contain personal-data identifiers listed in LR IC 6-1(a)(1)-(6). Violation may result in sanctions.”
Primary source
First Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices (Couvillier, M.J.), nvd.uscourts.gov