Connecticut Federal Court Orders Expert Witness AI Prompt Disclosure — Rule 26 Methodology Scope Extends to Generative AI Inputs

In Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co. (3:21-cv-00933 D. Conn., ECF No. 970, May 18, 2026), Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish ordered the plaintiff to produce the generative-AI prompts used by expert witness Dr. Naomi Oreskes in preparing her report. Dr. Oreskes had disclosed AI use in her May 2025 report, noting that she and a research assistant used a commercially available generative-AI tool to identify potentially relevant documents from the defendants' production; the defendants moved to compel production of the prompts and outputs. The court granted the motion, reasoning that an expert's methodology is fair ground under Rule 26, that the prompts that "culled the document production down to a workable subset" were part of that methodology, and that AI prompts are analytically no different from the formulas, code, or other methodological steps an expert is routinely required to disclose under Daubert and FRE 702. The order is stayed pending the district court's resolution of the plaintiff's objection — meaning it is not yet final — but the Spencer Fane analysis published July 17 identifies the practical compliance obligations that litigators should adopt immediately regardless: ask experts about AI use at the outset and throughout the engagement; build prompt preservation into the workflow from day one; distinguish carefully between AI used to locate information (clearly within Rule 26 methodology) and AI used to form opinions; draft AI disclosures in expert reports with precision and candor; and be deliberate about prompt content to avoid embedding attorney strategy and work product.