West Virginia · federal district court
Standing Order In Re: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Review Criminal Discovery
Sensitive material produced in criminal discovery may not be exposed to any AI tool without the government's prior written consent. Counsel seeking authorisation must identify the tool and certify that it does not retain or train on what is submitted.
Tracker entry · West Virginia
- Court. U.S. District Court, Northern District of West VirginiaCOURT
- Level. federal district courtLEVEL
- Date. 16 June 2026DATED
- What it requires. prohibition, certificationREQUIRES
- Source. Read the documentSOURCE
Last checked · we opened the source on that day and drew the requirement above from its text.
This one is worth reading closely in a defender office, because it is not about drafting. It is about what happens when discovery is loaded into a tool for review, which is exactly the workflow a busy office reaches for first.
The concern the order names is data-retentive or consumer-tier tools that let a publicly accessible system retain and use submitted data to train models. Sensitive materials may not be uploaded to or otherwise exposed to any AI tool without prior written consent from the government. Counsel who seek authorisation must specifically identify and describe the tool and certify that it does not retain or use the material and that confidentiality is maintained.
This entry is descriptive, not legal advice. It records what one document says. Read the order that governs your own division before you rely on any of it, and check whether it has changed since the date above.
Back to every jurisdiction in the tracker, or readhow to check an AI citation before you file.