On June 3, 2026, Judge Grant Dorfman of the Texas Business Court (Eleventh Division) issued a minute entry in Tate Group Automotive, LLC v. Legacy Automotive Capital, LLC, et al., Cause No. 25-BC11B-0020, addressing a question that courts nationwide are only beginning to confront: whether a company representative’s conversations with ChatGPT are protected from discovery under the work product doctrine, and whether using a generative AI tool waives that protection.

The dispute arose when defendants learned that Kris Tate, a non-lawyer principal of plaintiff Tate Group, had been uploading case-related materials to ChatGPT throughout the litigation. Defendants moved to compel, relying heavily on United States v. Heppner, a federal criminal case holding that conversations with AI platforms carry no reasonable expectation of confidentiality. They argued that (1) work product protection does not extend to a non-lawyer’s chats with an AI tool, and (2) even if it did, sharing the material with ChatGPT waived the protection. Plaintiff pushed back, asserting work product protection under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.5.

After conducting an in camera review, Judge Dorfman sided largely with the plaintiff, but with significant limits and warnings.

The Court distinguished Heppner, aligning itself with Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. and Morgan v. V2X, Inc., both decided in early 2026, holding that work product protection is waived only when materials are disclosed to an adversary, or in a manner substantially likely to reach one. Uploading documents to an AI analytical tool, the Court reasoned, does not satisfy that threshold.

Critically, Texas Rule 192.5 extends protection to "material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party," language broader than its federal counterpart. As The Texas Lawbook authors observed regarding the divergence between federal and Texas protections: "The Texas Business Court is the first to test this conduct against Texas’s own work product rule rather than the federal doctrine, and it answered both questions in favor of protection, though for different reasons on each." 

But the ruling was not a complete victory for the plaintiff. The Court ordered Tate Group to disclose, by Bates number, every discovery document shared with ChatGPT, including materials designated Confidential under the Protective Order. The Court also expressly invited the parties to amend the Protective Order to address AI tool usage going forward.

Key Holdings:

• The fact and scope of AI use is discoverable, even where the content is protected.
• A non-lawyer’s ChatGPT conversations can qualify as attorney work product under Texas law.
• Using ChatGPT did not, by itself, waive work product protection.
• Protection is not automatic — some documents were ordered produced.

Main Takeaways:

• The fact and scope of AI use likely is fair game in discovery.
• Everything your employees type into an AI tool is a potential discovery record.  AI chat logs are documents, so assume that any prompt written may ultimately be viewed by opposing counsel or a judge.
• Using AI may not waive work product protection, but it isn’t free of consequences.  Even when the content remains confidential, you may be ordered to identify specific documents fed into the AI tool.
• Include AI terms in your protective orders now, not after a problem surfaces.  And always review the terms of your protective order before uploading confidential discovery materials into AI tools.
• Adopt and enforce a litigation AI-use policy.

Tate Group is an early and important Texas data point in a rapidly-developing area: Texas’s party-focused work product doctrine can protect employees’ AI conversations prepared in anticipation of litigation, and merely using ChatGPT does not necessarily waive that protection.  But the protection has real limits.