The Court set aside a Notice to Produce comprising 67 categories as wholly defective under UCPR r 21.10, finding the categories were irrelevant to the facts in issue, sought documents by way of discovery rather than clearly identified documents, were unlimited as to time or other limiting factors, and were oppressive in scope. The Court also directed the self-represented plaintiff to comply with District Court General Practice Note 2 by declaring in future affidavits and submissions whether Generative AI had been used, noting suspected hallucination of cases and misuse of principle, though it did not make a finding that GenAI had in fact been used. The plaintiff was not precluded from serving a fresh compliant Notice to Produce.
The full text is available to signed-in members.