TL;DR:
A Texas Business Court minute entry dated June 3, 2026 held that a non-lawyer’s AI chats prepared in anticipation of litigation can qualify as protected attorney work product under Texas law, and it recommended negotiating protective-order amendments to address AI use. The decision signals that Texas may treat AI-assisted materials differently from some federal courts, with practical implications for how trial teams structure discovery and protect confidential information when using AI tools. Law firms and in-house teams should review protective orders, implement guardrails around inputting confidential information into AI tools, and coordinate with opposing counsel on agreed AI-use protocols. (ogletree.com)
Background and the ruling
In Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC, a minute entry issued June 3, 2026 by Judge Grant Dorfman of the Texas Business Court’s Eleventh Division weighed whether conversations with a public AI tool (ChatGPT) could be protected as work product. The court suggested that a non-lawyer’s AI chats, prepared in anticipation of litigation, may fall within the Texas work-product doctrine, separate from attorney-client privilege, and thus could be shielded from discovery under Texas procedural rules. Crucially, the ruling did not hold that AI inputs are automatically privileged in all contexts; instead, it recognized a potential protected-status for AI-generated litigation materials produced by a party or its representative under Texas law, while signaling that the identity of the AI tool itself may not be protected work product. The judge also indicated that protective orders should be amended to address AI use and confidentiality protections. (ogletree.com)
Significant context for practitioners is that this ruling arrives amid a broader, rapidly evolving line of cases addressing AI, privilege, and protective orders. Earlier in 2026, courts in other jurisdictions split on whether AI-assisted materials can be protected as work product or fall outside privilege frameworks, with notable decisions in Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan, February 2026) and Morgan v. V2X, Inc. (District of Colorado, March 2026). The Tate decision reflects a more flexible, Texas-focused approach to AI as a tool used within litigation, while also urging parties to negotiate tailored protective-order language. (kirkland.com)
Practical impact for trial teams in Texas and beyond
AI in discovery must be bargained, not assumed. The Tate minute entry creates a pathway for parties to argue that AI-assisted materials can retain work-product protection, but only if the protective-order framework is crafted to safeguard confidentiality and limit disclosure of AI inputs in ways that align with Texas rules. The court’s call for amendments to protective orders means counsel should proactively negotiate language that specifies how AI tools may be used, what materials can be uploaded to AI platforms, and under what safeguards. (ogletree.com)
Protecting confidentiality when using consumer AI tools. The Tate order underscores a core risk: inputs to public AI tools may expose confidential information. While the decision recognizes potential work-product protection, it also emphasizes the importance of contractual protections with AI vendors and explicit limitations in protective orders to prevent inadvertent data disclosure. Texas practitioners should adopt protective-order provisions requiring AI providers to prohibit data training or third-party disclosure of inputs and to permit deletion of confidential data upon request. (ogletree.com)
Distinguishing AI tool identity from outcomes. The Tate ruling aligns with a broader trend that the fact of using AI can be protected in some contexts, but revealing which AI tool was used may not be protected work product, depending on the jurisdiction and the protective order. Parties should be prepared to disclose tool usage if required by the court, while continuing to shield thought processes, strategies, and documents themselves. Courts in Colorado and Michigan have taken different positions on these specifics, so Texas practitioners should tailor arguments to the local standard. (ogletree.com)
Practical steps for trial teams. In light of Tate, litigants in Texas should: (1) review and, if needed, amend protective orders to address AI use, (2) include explicit prohibitions on inputting confidential information into AI platforms that are not enterprise-grade or lack robust data protections, (3) require AI vendors to offer deletion rights and to prohibit data training on uploaded materials, and (4) document the AI tool used and the safeguards in place to preserve confidentiality, while reserving the right to disclose tool identity if needed for the court or opposing counsel. The June 3 minute entry explicitly highlights these protective-order considerations as a practical focal point. (ogletree.com)
Implication for cross-border practice. Because federal courts have issued divergent opinions on AI and privilege, the Tate decision adds a Texas-state law dimension to the evolving landscape. Outside Texas, litigants must monitor how federal and state courts balance work-product protection with the use of generative AI tools. The broader takeaway for trial teams is to align AI-use policies with jurisdiction-specific rules and protective-order strategies to optimize privilege preservation and discovery efficiency. (kirkland.com)
Next steps for counsel and trial teams
Audit and revise protective orders now. For ongoing or anticipated litigation in Texas, counsel should examine current protective orders for language addressing AI usage and confidential data handling, and propose amendments that reflect Tate’s guardrails. A short, targeted amendment can specify that confidential material may not be uploaded to public AI platforms unless the provider guarantees data privacy, deletion rights, and non-training commitments. The Texas Business Court community is actively discussing these developments, making proactive amendments prudent. (ogletree.com)
Implement internal AI-use policies. In-house counsel and law firms should establish clear guidelines for when and how AI tools may be used in document review, brief drafting, and litigation analysis. Require that staff receive guidance on avoiding input of confidential information into consumer AI tools and ensure that any AI-assisted outputs are reviewed for confidentiality and privilege implications before dissemination. (ogletree.com)
Coordinate with opposing counsel. Given the evolving landscape, engage in early discussions about AI-use protocols in discovery and protective orders to reduce disputes and promote transparent, defendable practices at trial. Tate’s minute-entry approach invites negotiation rather than unilateral action, a posture that can streamline later stages of litigation. (ogletree.com)
Leverage practical training resources. For trial teams building readiness around AI-generated evidence and objections, tools that simulate real court objections and evidentiary challenges—such as Objection Academy—can provide structured practice on AI-related objections and typical guardrails encountered in modern trials. Training in objection handling, foundation for AI-produced content, and preservation strategies can translate into more efficient hearings and stronger advocacy.
Conclusion
The Tate Group Automotive v Legacy Automotive Capital minute entry from June 3, 2026 marks a tangible, timely step in how AI-in-litigation practice will be governed in Texas. By recognizing the potential for non-lawyer AI chats to be protected as work product under Texas law and by urging tailored protective-order amendments, the Texas Business Court provides a pragmatic blueprint for trial teams navigating AI use in discovery and litigation. As federal and other state courts continue to chart their own paths, Texas practitioners can draw from Tate to craft robust, jurisdiction-aware strategies that protect deliberative materials while maintaining transparency and collaboration with adversaries.
Sources:
- Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC, minute entry, June 3, 2026 (Texas Business Court, Eleventh Division). (ogletree.com)
- Texas Judge Shields Some ChatGPT Chats As Work Product, Law360, June 4, 2026. (law360.com)
- Texas Judge Suggests Non-Lawyer AI ‘Chats’ May Be Protected Attorney Work Product, Ogletree Deakins, June 18, 2026. (ogletree.com)
- Texas Business Court weighs in on discoverability of AI prompts, Foley & Lardner (via JDSupra), June 2026. (jdsupra.com)
- Two federal courts chart diverging paths on the discoverability of LLM interactions, Kirkland & Ellis, March 2026, and subsequent updates. (kirkland.com)
- Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.; Morgan v. V2X, Inc. coverage and analysis from multiple sources (press coverage and law firm alerts). (law.justia.com)
Note: Objection Academy is referenced as a practical training tool for trial teams to strengthen objection handling and evidence-readiness in the era of AI-informed litigation.