The conversation around AI in eDiscovery continues to evolve, and one recent court decision makes an important point: the problem isn't AI-assisted review—it's whether your workflow is defensible.
In Schulte v. LinkedIn, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler's June 30, 2026 discovery order reinforces what many in the industry have been saying for years. Courts aren't asking parties to avoid AI. They're asking them to use it responsibly.
The court rejected attempts to require LinkedIn to run AI review across every custodial file, denied demands for extensive audit-level details about Relativity aiR, and refused requests for broader collections that lacked evidence they would uncover meaningful, non-duplicative information.
Why?
Why?
Because discovery isn't about collecting everything possible. It's about conducting a reasonable, proportional, and defensible process.
The order recognizes that AI-assisted review can be part of a sound discovery strategy when it's incorporated into a thoughtful workflow.
That means:
The court made it clear that speculation alone isn't enough to challenge an AI workflow. If someone believes documents were missed, they need evidence—not simply suspicion because AI was involved.
At Avansic, we've never viewed AI as a replacement for experienced legal professionals.
Instead, AI accelerates document review by helping legal teams identify relevant information faster while allowing attorneys to focus on legal strategy and decision-making.
The technology is only one piece of the equation.
The real question is:
Can you explain and defend your process?
That's what judges, opposing counsel, and clients increasingly expect.
This also aligns with the growing focus on ethical AI use in legal practice. Attorneys have a duty to understand the technology they're using, recognize its limitations, protect confidential information, and verify AI-generated work before relying on it. AI should support competent representation—not replace it.
The future isn't "collect everything and let AI sort it out."
It's a layered, defensible workflow where every step—from preservation and collection to search, AI review, attorney validation, and production—is reasonable, proportional, and well documented.
Organizations that can explain why they made each decision will be in a much stronger position than those who simply rely on the latest technology.
AI review isn't the issue.
Defensibility is.