Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach, No. 25-cv-20251 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 11, 2026), full opinion (PDF)
A party that edits a court-ordered consent to its AI providers can end up authorizing far broader disclosure. A magistrate judge in Miami had directed the defendant to sign forms letting his AI service providers disclose deletion logs for his accounts. He changed the forms before submitting them. At a hearing on November 9, the court ordered a broader consent. The new consent covers all account data and content. He must sign it without altering the required language.
What happened
Earlier orders required the defendant to produce responsive communications with AI service providers. At a continued hearing on November 9, the hotel told the court that he had materially modified the consent forms. By the hotel's account, the forms also lacked the required account identifiers and the notarization. The hotel added that they came through his counsel rather than from the email addresses tied to his AI accounts. Its counsel read into the record an email from ChatGPT's in-house counsel explaining the deficiencies.
The defendant acknowledged signing the forms but disputed the need for some of the information requested. He said his AI account data was still being processed by an eDiscovery vendor. According to the defendant, his counsel did not yet have access to the data.
The court's analysis
The court found that the forms, as submitted, did not comply with what the providers required to process the authorizations. It further found that the defendant's failure to produce the AI account data in his possession, custody, or control continued to violate its prior orders. The court made that finding notwithstanding his statement that the vendor was still processing the data.
The hotel asked for a broader consent reaching account data, deletion logs, and content. Under its proposal, the logs would decide whether further review was needed. The court adopted that approach in light of the defendant's failure to comply with its prior orders. In the court's view, his changes had made the required consent form useless. The court also cited the close of discovery on November 9.
The updated forms authorize the providers to disclose all account data and content, including any available deletion logs. The defendant must sign them without altering or qualifying the required language and send them from the email addresses tied to his accounts.
The court acknowledged his concern that the broader authorizations could duplicate the vendor's review. It found them warranted. The defendant is excused from reviewing the new data if the deletion logs establish that nothing was deleted. If they reflect deletions, he must review that data and produce responsive, nonprivileged communications not previously produced. Separately, any responsive AI communications he withholds as privileged must go on a log under Rule 26(b)(5)(A).
The order also required a knowledgeable representative of the defendant's eDiscovery vendor to attend a November 12 status conference and answer the court's questions. The court found that he had failed to comply with at least two prior discovery orders. It awarded the hotel its reasonable fees and expenses for two discovery hearings, on November 5 and November 9. The order separately addressed outstanding financial records.
Why it matters
A litigant who objects to the terms of a court-ordered consent should raise the objection with the court before signing. Editing the form instead invites a broader order. A court that sees a narrow procedure fail has reason to replace it with a wider one.
A requesting party pursuing AI account records should get each provider's release requirements in writing early. That record lets the party show exactly why a submitted form fails. The party can then ask the court to write each provider's requirements into the order. A form drafted to the providers' own terms is harder to get wrong.
Requesting deletion logs alongside content lets them decide whether the producing party must review newly released data at all. Making review depend on the logs can answer the objection that a broader consent forces duplicate review.
Vendor processing time is a weak excuse for a missed production deadline. A court can find a continuing violation while the vendor is still working. Producing parties in that position should be ready to have someone explain the vendor's progress. A court may require a vendor representative to appear and answer the court's questions.
The full opinion is available as a PDF.
