Any discovery responses, including but not limited to answers to interrogatories, Rule 213(f) disclosures, and Rule 214 document productions, that are generated in whole or in part using artificial intelligence (AI) tools must be verified for factual accuracy, legal sufficiency, and compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rules.

Parties utilizing TAR software (also called predictive coding, computer assisted review, or supervised machine learning) to search and identify relevant documents to disclose during the discovery process must notify opposing counsel in their response that the documents were identified thru use of this technology.

3. Certification Requirement: Attorneys must file a signed certification attesting that: - • They have personally reviewed the discovery responses; - • They have verified that the answers are accurate and complete based on their own legal judgment; - • They are not relying solely on the AI tool's output to determine the sufficiency or completeness of the responses. (See attached Sample Certification Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Discovery Responses, APPENDIX 1)

At least ninety (90) days prior to trial, any party that seeks to introduce evidence enhanced or generated by an artificial intelligence program shall give timely notice and disclose such evidence to the opposing party via affidavit of the attorney or analyst with the following: - 1. That Exhibit "X" is evidence that was enhanced or generated by technology utilizing AI, specifically describing what portion of the evidence was generated or enhanced; - 2. Name or describe what technology was used to enhance the evidence, the date it was enhanced or generated, how it operates, and what steps were taken to enhance the evidence with that technology, any algorithm used to enhance or create the evidence; - 3. Certification that the evidence was reviewed by a human for accuracy; - 4. Documentation (or a description of the method used) to demonstrate the AI tool's reliability and validity in producing or enhancing the evidence; - 5. Verification that the evidence and the algorithm used to create or enhance the evidence has been preserved in its original and AI-processed form; and - 6. Attach a copy of the original version of the evidence in addition to any enhanced version of the evidence.

Any party contesting the disclosure and use of AI enhancement or generation of evidence after receiving this notice must within thirty (30) days of disclosure provide opposing counsel with notice challenging the evidence and proffering a sufficient factual basis to overcome the proponent's certification.

b. Expert Use of AI Generated or Enhanced Evidence- If any expert witness relies on AI or AI-generated data or tools in forming their opinions, their report shall include a detailed description of the AI used, how it was applied, and a demonstration of its reliability in forming those opinions. An expert submitting or utilizing AI content must explain in non-technical yet substantive terms the system that was used in its creation; explain and describe any algorithms used, how and with what input that system was trained, whether the system is open or closed; how the system reached its particular decision, recommendation, or prediction; and why the training and system is reliable and trustworthy. In sum, the methodology and operation of the AI tool must be transparent to the extent that opposing parties have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the expert regarding the AI tool's processes and decision-making pathways based on the information it is given; and potential biases or limitations inherent in the AI tool.

This form is to be completed and signed by any attorney submitting discovery responses in this Court where artificial intelligence (AI) tools were used in the preparation, drafting, or review of those responses. I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify the following regarding the discovery responses submitted in this matter: - 1. I have reviewed all responses submitted to ensure they are factually accurate, complete, and responsive to the discovery requests served. - 2. To the extent any AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, CoCounsel, or similar software) was used to assist in drafting or organizing responses, I have verified that all such content was reviewed and edited by counsel for legal sufficiency and accuracy. - 3. I have not relied on AI tools to generate objections or responses without applying professional judgment and tailoring to the specific facts and legal context of the case. - 4. No confidential or privileged material was entered into any AI system that stores or transmits information to external servers, except where such use is permitted by protective order or by prior agreement of the parties. - 5. The use of AI in preparing these responses has not compromised the integrity of any factual statement, legal objection, or disclosure requirement under Illinois law. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. _____ Attorney Signature