Jump to content

Fischman v Epic Systems Corporation

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Fischman v. Epic Systems Corporation[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division[1]
Docket 3:26-cv-00770-D[1]
Filed March 10, 2026[2]
Judge(s) Sidney A. Fitzwater[1]
Plaintiffs Gallit Fischman[1]
Defendants Epic Systems Corporation[1]
Case type Civil product-liability and wrongful-death action; discovery dispute concerning AI use[1]
Claims / issues Alleged electronic-health-record defects; negligence and wrongful death; protection of confidential discovery material in AI tools[3][1]
Status October 23, 2026: protective-order motion granted, including restrictions on entering protected discovery material into AI tools; plaintiff’s case-management motion denied without prejudice as moot.[1]

Fischman v. Epic Systems Corporation is a federal civil action concerning the alleged role of Epic’s electronic-health-record software in the death of the plaintiff’s father. Its AI-related discovery dispute concerns safeguards for using confidential litigation material in AI tools.[3][1]

Allegations and pleading-stage rulings

Gallit Fischman, proceeding without counsel, alleges that deficiencies in Epic’s software prevented accurate medical information from being displayed and failed to provide medication safeguards and warnings. The September 30, 2026 opinion describes these allegations in the second amended complaint.[3]

On September 30, Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater declined to dismiss the products-liability, negligence and wrongful-death claims. He dismissed the gross-negligence claim because the pleaded facts did not plausibly establish the required subjective awareness of the particular risk, and allowed 28 days to replead. These were pleading-stage determinations rather than findings that the software caused the death.[3]

October 23, 2026 protective-order ruling

On October 23, the court granted Epic’s motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court found good cause to protect proprietary software and business information sought in discovery, including information about software design, development and implementation.[1]

The approved restrictions bar entering confidential or highly confidential material into an AI tool unless the tool is contractually prohibited from storing or using the inputs to train or improve a model and from disclosing the inputs to third parties. The opinion expressly preserves AI use for research, drafting, organisation and other litigation tasks that do not involve protected material. It also explains that confidentiality designations cannot be used to deny an unrepresented party access to discovery material and that the order governs protection and dissemination rather than the scope of discovery.[1]

The court cited Fischman’s acknowledged AI use in finding good cause for the restrictions and overruled her objection that the provisions were overly broad. It also denied her motion concerning Epic’s implementation role without prejudice as moot, after Epic agreed to provide a substantive response once the protective order was entered.[1]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 N.D. Tex., memorandum opinion and order, ECF 57, October 23, 2026, pp. 1–10.
  2. ↑ Fischman v. Epic Systems Corporation, docket listing, including March 10, 2026 complaint entry.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 N.D. Tex., memorandum opinion and order, ECF 49, September 30, 2026, pp. 1–18.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Fischman_v_Epic_Systems_Corporation&oldid=7763"