The Initial Report | Supplemental No. 03 | When an Expert Team Used AI to Search Case Documents

The Initial Report · Supplemental · No. 03

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.

3:21-cv-00933 · District of Connecticut · Text-only docket order entered May 18, 2026

Published by The Initial Report June 1, 2026

When an Expert Team Used AI to Search Case Documents

On May 18, 2026, a federal judge in Connecticut ordered Conservation Law Foundation to answer discovery about AI prompts or queries used by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, CLF's expert witness, and her team while preparing her expert report.¹
The dispute was narrow. Shell defendants wanted information about prompts, queries, outputs, and related material from an AI workflow used to search or narrow defendants' documents for the report. The court treated that search-and-narrowing work as part of the expert's methodology. It ordered revised written discovery responses.¹

July 2021
CLF files a Connecticut federal environmental suit over Shell-related bulk petroleum terminal operations in New Haven Harbor. The case includes Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act claims tied to alleged severe-weather and climate-risk preparation failures. That is the larger case. The May 2026 order is about expert discovery inside it.²

Dec. 23, 2025
Defendants file docket entry No. 941, cited in the federal court record as ECF 941. They ask the court to require CLF to provide materials Dr. Oreskes considered or used for her opinions. The motion says an AI workflow helped identify documents for her report. It asks for prompts, queries, outputs, and related material. It also asks for sanctions. The later May 18 order does not impose sanctions.³

Expert Methodology
The May 18 order focused on how Dr. Oreskes or her team narrowed defendants' document production into a smaller set for the report. On this record, the court treated that search-and-narrowing work as expert methodology.⁴

May 14, 2026
The court holds a hearing after the parties narrow the dispute. The docket text order later says the remaining issue was defendants' request for prompts Dr. Oreskes used in the AI analysis and for outputs from that work. That narrower dispute set up the May 18 order.⁴

Party Agreement
The parties had an agreement limiting some expert discovery. CLF argued that AI prompts fit within that agreement. The court disagreed. It said the agreement was not clear enough to keep otherwise discoverable material out.⁵

May 18, 2026
ECF 970 grants defendants' motion. It is a text-only docket order, not a separate PDF opinion. The order says that, in this case, the way Dr. Oreskes and her team narrowed defendants' documents into a set for her report was part of expert methodology. That made the prompts or queries discoverable under the expert-discovery rules.⁶

May 18, 2026
The order also rejects CLF's party-agreement argument. It points to Dr. Alexander Kaurov's declaration; the docket order identifies him as Dr. Oreskes' assistant. The declaration said prompts/queries and model outputs were used interactively to identify potentially relevant documents. It also said he did not preserve a complete native prompt/output log. The remedy is revised discovery responses about AI prompts or queries used by Dr. Oreskes or her team in producing the expert report, including a signed diligent-search response if no additional responsive materials exist.⁶

Not Decided
ECF 970 does not decide attorney-prompt questions. It does not decide privilege, work product, litigation-strategy prompts, or every AI-assisted workflow. It is one discovery order in one case.

June 1, 2026
ECF 970 set June 1, 2026, as the deadline for revised responses. On that date, CLF filed an emergency stay motion and a Rule 72(a) objection, which asks the district judge to review a magistrate judge's pretrial order. The available docket entries through ECF 975 do not show a stay ruling, objection ruling, compliance filing, or sanctions order.⁷

Stay and Objection
ECF 974 asks the court to stay ECF 970 pending Rule 72(a) review. ECF 975 objects to ECF 970. Both were filed on June 1, 2026.⁷

Current Record

Through ECF 975

ECF 970 is one discovery order in one federal case. It ordered revised discovery responses about AI prompts or queries used by Dr. Oreskes or her team in producing her expert report. It did not decide attorney prompts, litigation-strategy prompts, privilege, work product, broad AI-use questions, or expert-admissibility challenges.

Source Record

1. Sources: ECF No. 970, Text Order|ECF No. 941, motion to compel|ECF No. 941-4, Kaurov declaration
ECF 970 is the May 18, 2026 text-only docket order: “ECF No. 970, Text Order, Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., No. 3:21-cv-00933 (D. Conn. May 18, 2026).” ECF 941 and ECF 941-4 supply the motion and declaration context.
2. Sources: Climate Case Chart case page|Justia, ECF 277
These public records support case background: docket number, venue, filing year, CWA/RCRA posture, New Haven Harbor terminal framing, and defendants.
3. Sources: ECF No. 941, Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Reliance Materials|ECF No. 970, Text Order
ECF 941 supports defendants' motion, requested categories, reliance-material theory, sanctions request, and confidentiality arguments. ECF 970 supports that the May 18 order did not impose sanctions.
4. Source: ECF No. 970, Text Order
ECF 970 states the narrowed dispute and the court's methodology holding.
5. Sources: ECF No. 970, Text Order|ECF No. 975-2, expert discovery stipulation exhibit
ECF 975-2 supplies the party agreement language. ECF 970 supplies the court's “quite clear” standard and its rejection of CLF's prompt-as-note argument.
6. Sources: ECF No. 970, Text Order|ECF No. 941-4, Kaurov declaration
ECF 970 supports the grant of ECF 941, the methodology ruling, the revised-response remedy, and the June 1 deadline. ECF 941-4 supports the declaration statements about prompts/queries, model outputs, and the incomplete prompt/output log.
7. Sources: PACER docket text for ECF Nos. 974 and 975|ECF No. 974, emergency stay motion|ECF No. 975, Rule 72(a) objection
The docket identifies ECF 974 as the stay motion and ECF 975 as the Rule 72(a) objection. Both were filed June 1, 2026. ECF 974 asks for a stay pending Rule 72(a) review; ECF 975 objects to ECF 970.

Archive Contact

© 2026 Plain Thinking