Involved parties include pro se plaintiff Morgan, defendant V2X, Inc. (an employer in this discrimination/wrongful termination case), and presiding judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.[1][3][5] This follows two prior rulings: U.S. v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10/17, 2026, by Judge Jed S. Rakoff), denying privilege/work product protection for a criminal defendant's unsupervised use of public AI (Claude) due to lack of confidentiality and attorney involvement,[2][4][6][7][8] and an unspecified second case contributing to the "third court" tally.[1][3]
The dispute arose when V2X refused to produce its insurance policy without AI tool disclosure and usage limits, citing confidentiality risks under the existing protective order; both sides used AI, but the pro se plaintiff lacked defendant's proprietary system, prompting "technological gap" arguments.[5] This builds on Heppner's emphasis on technology-neutral privilege principles, where public AI inputs lack confidentiality assurances.[2][6]
**Newsworthy as the latest in rapid 2026 judicial evolution addressing AI's litigation role—post-Heppner's high-profile "first impression" denial—offering pro se/protected use affirmation while imposing practical disclosure and confidentiality curbs amid widespread lawyer/client AI adoption.[1][3][5][2]