California Courts AI Filing Rules Tracker

The court's policy on generative artificial intelligence (AI) in court filings and documents: its introduction and scope (all individuals, represented by counsel or not, attorneys and entities submitting filings and documents who may be utilizing generative AI tools); accuracy and reliability (AI limitations; filings prepared with generative AI thoroughly reviewed and verified before submission, citations to cases independently verified; human oversight, every submission reviewed and signed by a self-represented litigant or an attorney of record); and confidentiality and security (submissions to AI platforms are not fully confidential; the court does not guarantee the security of data submitted to or processed by generative AI systems).

First Appellate District · San Mateo County · verified October 8, 2026

Department V12's general order on AI materials intended as evidence (Jeffrey R. Erickson): AI-generated evidentiary material is not considered unless the procedures are followed; disclosure at the time of submission absent stipulation or other order; disclosure when an AI or other automated tool is used to create exhibits, demonstratives or other material; and the identification of material created with the assistance of an AI tool.

Fourth Appellate District · San Bernardino County · Judge Jeffrey R. Erickson · verified October 7, 2026

Judge Kimberly A. Knill's policies for Department C31 (Central Justice Center): schedule (trials Monday through Wednesday; settlement conferences Friday 9:00 a.m.; ex parte Monday through Thursday 1:30 p.m.; motions Friday 10:00 a.m.; case management conferences Thursday 1:30 p.m.; trial call Friday 11:30 a.m.); motions and tentative rulings; discovery motions (meet and confer first); ex parte applications (notice by 10:00 a.m. and filing by noon the court day before); stipulations; the Department C31 Pretrial Order (a pretrial checklist tied to Local Rule 317); and the department's Standing Order re: Artificial Intelligence of August 10, 2026: counsel and self-represented parties must personally confirm the accuracy of research done with generative AI, bear responsibility for all statements in their filings, and may be sanctioned or referred for failing to verify citations.

Fourth Appellate District · Orange County · Judge Kimberly A. Knill · verified September 29, 2026

In the Appellate Division, counsel and self-represented parties are responsible for complete and accurate representations of the record, procedural history and authorities; generative AI is not prohibited, but its user must personally confirm the accuracy of research done with it and bears responsibility for every statement in a filing; users must comply with protective orders and ethical obligations; failure to verify citations may bring sanctions or State Bar discipline.

Fourth Appellate District · Orange County · verified September 29, 2026

General Order 2026-04, signed by Honorable Mark Nareau, Presiding Judge: the duty of candor of lawyers and Pro Se litigants to the court; by presenting a filing the attorney or unrepresented party certifies that it is the product of reasonable inquiry and that the authorities cited do in fact exist and are accurately represented; the court does not regulate, restrict, or require disclosure of the tools used, artificial intelligence programs included, but the person who signs and submits a filing bears responsibility for its contents; fabricated quotations, nonexistent authority, or materially inaccurate descriptions of legal authority a breach of the duty of candor; sanctions proportionate to the conduct - striking the filing in whole or in part, monetary sanctions, referral to appropriate disciplinary authorities or any other measure the court deems appropriate; the order intended to be incorporated into a future revision of the Local Rules of Court effective January 1, 2027, and then deemed automatically revoked and rescinded.

Third Appellate District · Lassen County · verified October 13, 2026

An order issued under the California Rules of Court governing court administration and technology, including rule 10.430, on generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the Superior Court of California, County of Del Norte: it adopts the Judicial Council of California's AI Model Policy; allows court personnel limited administrative and support uses, advisory and non-determinative; prohibits generative AI in judicial decision-making, the input of confidential, sealed or non-public information into a system not approved and secured, and public-facing communications that could be taken for legal advice; delegates oversight to the Court Executive Officer (rules 10.430 and 10.610); requires an affirmative disclosure when generative AI materially assisted in drafting a court document, memorandum, report or proposed order intended for filing, circulation to parties or the court record (not for de minimis or purely mechanical uses, nor for a judicial officer's own drafting tools in chambers); keeps the person signing, issuing or approving a document fully accountable; and, for attorneys and self-represented litigants (Section XI), states that SB 574 will change BP 6068 and other statutes to include requirements of court users and practitioners to report the use of AI and of parties to ensure the accuracy of citations, and that the Court shall require adherence to all mandated reporting requirements per SB574.

First Appellate District · Del Norte County · verified October 13, 2026