Suggested A.I. Rule – Suggested Amendment to Maryland’s Computer-Generated Evidence Rule | EDRM – Electronic Discovery Reference Model

Source Domain: www.jdsupra.com

Here’s a summary of the key points from the article regarding Maryland courts’ handling of artificial intelligence and computer-generated evidence:

Emerging Role of AI in Courts: Maryland courts are beginning to encounter artificial intelligence (AI) issues, with ongoing discussions about how to deal with AI-generated evidence in legal proceedings.
Pilot Program and Rule Amendments: The Administrative Office of the Courts in Maryland is running a pilot program to tackle AI-related issues. There are also discussions about amending Maryland Rule 1-311 to manage references to AI-generated, or “hallucinated,” cases.
Existing Rules and Gaps: Maryland has long had a rule, Md. Rule 2-504.3, which applies to civil cases regarding computer-generated evidence (CGE). However, this rule has not been referenced in any reported cases since its adoption and amendment.
Proposed Amendments: There is a suggestion to revise Maryland Rule 2-504.3 to include generative AI-created evidence. The proposal emphasizes notice, disclosure, pretrial hearings, and the appointment of experts – akin to some Maryland criminal statute procedures on facial recognition technology and recommendations from legal scholars.
Focus on Acknowledged GenAI: The proposed changes aim to streamline handling of “acknowledged” AI-generated evidence while acknowledging the infeasibility of comprehensively addressing every form of AI-generated content such as deepfakes, which are often “unacknowledged.”

This summary captures the essence of the article, focusing on Maryland’s current approach and proposed adjustments to handle the challenges brought by AI in the judicial process.