Fontainebleau seeks Rabbi Shmuley's AI chats; he challenges the discovery requests
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Fontainebleau argues that Shmuley Boteach's AI communications may bear on damages in its defamation suit. Boteach challenges the breadth of the requests and invokes work-product protection. An October 21 order permits specified categories while rejecting broader requests.
Read the full background
The parties submitted opposing briefs on October 12, 2026 about discovery reopened for damages in Fontainebleau's defamation litigation. The hotel argues that AI prompts and revisions can bear on intent to harm, continuing injury and punitive damages. Boteach argues that the requests exceed the limited reopening and risk disclosing litigation preparation.
Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein's October 21 order permits discovery of nonprivileged communications concerning the hotel, its counsel, and its employees, owners or representatives. It rejects broader requests about the litigation generally, court orders and judges. Responsive communications do not become exempt simply because they also discuss litigation.
The order preserves document-specific work-product objections and requires a privilege log for withheld material. It permits revised subpoenas after a discussion about production logistics, without compelling nonparty providers to produce or resolving their own objections. The order distinguishes constitutional actual malice from intent relevant to punitive damages. It does not establish what any unproduced conversation contains.
People in this case
- Shmuley BoteachDirectly involved
Timeline
3 timeline entries on this page. Dates: October 12, 2026 to October 24, 2026
October 2026
The parties submit opposing AI-discovery briefs
Source release
Fontainebleau argues for relevance to damages. Boteach challenges the requests' scope and invokes work-product protection.
[01]Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC
Fontainebleau argues that specified AI material is relevant to intent to harm and punitive damages. Its descriptions of the material are allegations by counsel.
Fontainebleau supplemental briefing on AI-data relevancy · Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLCECF 283, introduction and pages 1-8[02]Shmuley Boteach
The defense challenges the scope of reopened damages discovery and seeks protection for qualifying litigation-preparation material.
Boteach supplemental memorandum opposing the scope of AI discovery · Shmuley BoteachECF 282, pages 1-9The court narrows AI discovery and preserves specific objections
The order permits specified nonprivileged categories, rejects broader requests and directs discussion of production logistics. It does not compel nonparty providers to produce.
[03]Fontainebleau v. Botach: second order after discovery hearing
The order permits defined AI-discovery requests, narrows others and preserves document-specific work-product objections.
Fontainebleau v. Botach: second order after discovery hearingECF 289, pages 12-25, especially the conclusion on pages 24-25Boteach publicly challenges the AI-discovery ruling
Reaction
Boteach posts that the order threatens Americans' AI privacy and raises constitutional concerns.
[04]Shmuley Boteach
Boteach criticizes the discovery order as a threat to AI privacy. The post also contains his separate accusations about the litigation.
Boteach's response to the AI-discovery ruling · Shmuley BoteachX post 2114189713544233245, opening headline and paragraph
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC
The requested AI material is relevant to intent to harm and the remaining damages issues.
Sources (1)
- Fontainebleau supplemental briefing on AI-data relevancy · Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLCECF 283, introduction and pages 1-8
Disputed claim
The AI requests exceed the limited reopening of damages discovery and require protection for qualifying litigation-preparation material.
Sources (1)
- Boteach supplemental memorandum opposing the scope of AI discovery · Shmuley BoteachECF 282, pages 1-9
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 matching responses. Newest first.
Shmuley BoteachDefendant posting on his public X accountDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Boteach identifies the court's authorization of targeted AI subpoenas in his Fontainebleau litigation.
"JUDGE MARTY ELFENBEIN’S RULING HAS PUT EVERY AMERICAN’S AI PRIVACY AT RISK"
CondemnedCase context: Fontainebleau seeks Rabbi Shmuley's AI chats; he challenges the discovery requests
Full statement and sources
Boteach calls the targeted discovery order a threat to Americans' AI privacy and frames his objection in constitutional terms.
After the statement
He frames the dispute as a broader question of privacy, speech, due process and equal treatment.
Boteach's response to the AI-discovery ruling · Shmuley BoteachX post 2114189713544233245, opening headline and paragraphWhy this label?
The case concerns discovery of his AI communications. Boteach expressly criticizes the ruling authorizing targeted requests.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLCPlaintiff acting through litigation counselDirectly involved Before this statement
Fontainebleau seeks discovery of Boteach's AI prompts and chats.
"The prompts and chats are his mental state reduced to writing, and they are probative of damages."
Defended or excusedCase context: Fontainebleau seeks Rabbi Shmuley's AI chats; he challenges the discovery requests
Full statement and sources
Fontainebleau argues that Boteach's prompts and chats record his mental state and help establish damages.
After the statement
The hotel alleges that Boteach repeatedly revised attacks on it.
Fontainebleau supplemental briefing on AI-data relevancy · Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLCECF 283, introduction and pages 1-8Why this label?
The disputed action is the hotel's request for AI discovery. Its own brief argues that the request is justified by the remaining damages issues.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- Shmuley BoteachDefendant acting through litigation counselDirectly involved
Before this statement
Boteach argues that the hotel did not pursue AI discovery before the general cutoff and that the reopening is limited to damages.
"The Court should sustain the objections to the proposed AI-provider subpoenas as drafted"
CondemnedCase context: Fontainebleau seeks Rabbi Shmuley's AI chats; he challenges the discovery requests
Full statement and sources
Boteach asks the court to sustain his objections to the proposed AI-provider subpoenas as drafted.
After the statement
He asks the court to preserve substantiated work-product objections before requiring production.
Boteach supplemental memorandum opposing the scope of AI discovery · Shmuley BoteachECF 282, pages 1-9Why this label?
The case concerns the hotel's discovery requests. Boteach expressly rejects the subpoenas as drafted and asks the court to sustain his objections.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(4)
Original text
Fontainebleau v. Botach: second order after discovery hearing
Relevant passage: ECF 289, pages 12-25, especially the conclusion on pages 24-25
About this source
The order permits defined AI-discovery requests, narrows others and preserves document-specific work-product objections.
- Author
- Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Boteach's response to the AI-discovery ruling
About this source
Boteach criticizes the discovery order as a threat to AI privacy. The post also contains his separate accusations about the litigation.
- Author
- Shmuley Boteach
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Boteach supplemental memorandum opposing the scope of AI discovery
Relevant passage: ECF 282, pages 1-9
About this source
The defense challenges the scope of reopened damages discovery and seeks protection for qualifying litigation-preparation material.
- Author
- Counsel for Shmuley Boteach
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Fontainebleau supplemental briefing on AI-data relevancy
Relevant passage: ECF 283, introduction and pages 1-8
About this source
Fontainebleau argues that specified AI material is relevant to intent to harm and punitive damages. Its descriptions of the material are allegations by counsel.
- Author
- Counsel for Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Fontainebleau seeks Rabbi Shmuley's AI chats; he challenges the discovery requests
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/fontainebleau-shmuley-boteach-ai-chat-discovery
The Dispute Index. "Fontainebleau seeks Rabbi Shmuley's AI chats; he challenges the discovery requests". First published: 2026-10-25. Last updated: 2026-10-25. https://disputeindex.com/cases/fontainebleau-shmuley-boteach-ai-chat-discovery