That's part of libel plaintiff's argument(filed last week) for subpoenaing defendant's AI queries in Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach; the defendant is popularly known as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. From the introduction:

The Court asked whether Botach's communications with AI platforms fall within the scope of "damages" discovery permitted by ECF No. 261, and specifically how those materials relate to malice and the statutory cap on punitive damages. Precedent from the United States Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit, as well as Florida law, answers that question directly.

Under Fla. Stat. § 768.73(1)(c), the cap on punitive damages lifts entirely where the fact finder determines that "the defendant had a specific intent to harm the claimant" at the time of the injury. As discussed below, legions of cases from trial courts to the Supreme Court hold that post-defamation conduct is probative of whether defamatory statements were made with intent to harm. Specific intent is therefore not background color to the damages trial or damages discovery. Discovery into Botach's intent to harm Plaintiff is damages discovery, and the AI materials are the most direct evidence of that intent.

Botach did not merely publish an errant falsehood on a blog or make a heated statement in a debate. He methodically engineered his attacks—drafting, refining, and iterating for painful effect through the most potent technologies known to humankind. The prompts and chats are his mental state reduced to writing, and they are probative of damages.

And from the defendant's response:

The Court should sustain the objections to the proposed AI-provider subpoenas as drafted and apply the same limits to the overlapping Seventh Request for Production. The issue is whether these demands fall within the scope of "discovery limited to damages." The unresolved punitive amount permits discovery concerning punishment for the adjudicated wrong, not an unrestricted inquiry into Defendant's research or litigation conduct.

The amended complaint already alleges knowing falsity, deliberate fabrication, repeated publication, financial motive, and specific intent to harm. Plaintiff did not pursue AI discovery before the general discovery cutoff. But under the guise of "discovery limited to damages," Plaintiff seeks every responsive AI exchange concerning this litigation, the Hotel, Plaintiff's lawyers, every court order, and the judges. It reaches accounts associated with an expansively defined "Botach," without limiting production to his queries or material used in the actionable publications. The Court should enforce the reopening order before requiring any production and independently preserve substantiated work-product objections.

For more backstory on the case, an excerpt from the long Report and Recommendation issued July 29 by Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein in Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC v. Botach:

This action arises from an encounter between Defendant and then-hotel guest Faiz Akbar … in the lobby of Plaintiff's hotel in December 2024. The Parties sharply dispute the nature of the encounter, who initiated or escalated it, and whether Plaintiff responded appropriately to Defendant's subsequent complaints.

Plaintiff's operative First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant published false statements concerning the incident and Plaintiff's response to it, including statements that Plaintiff discriminated against Defendant because he is Jewish, knowingly permitted an antisemitic assault to occur on its premises, removed Defendant rather than the alleged aggressor, and refused to cooperate with law enforcement. Based on those allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for defamation and tortious interference with business relationships.

Defendant filed a Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint asserting claims against Plaintiff and naming Jeffrey Soffer … and Akbar as Third-Party Defendants. Defendant's Counterclaim alleges, among other things, that he was subjected to an antisemitic verbal attack at the hotel, that Plaintiff failed to protect him or adequately cooperate with the ensuing investigation, and that Plaintiff thereafter excluded him from its properties. Defendant asserted claims under federal civil-rights statutes and a claim for tortious interference with business relationships….

The merits of the Parties' competing claims are not directly before the Court in the Motion for Sanctions. Instead, the dispute concerns Defendant's conduct during the litigation, the meaning and scope of the District Court's February 20, 2026 Order …, and whether Defendant's subsequent social-media activity violated that Order in a manner warranting sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) or the Court's inherent authority….

On March 11, 2025, Defendant served a subpoena on the Miami Beach Police Department seeking video footage of the underlying incident that Plaintiff previously provided to the department. The Miami Beach Police Department produced responsive surveillance footage to Defendant's counsel on March 26, 2025, and counsel thereafter transmitted that footage to Defendant. On April 2, 2025, before the entry of a protective order, Defendant posted an excerpt of the surveillance footage to his public Instagram account, which had more than 90,000 followers. On April 7, 2025, the Parties jointly moved for entry of a stipulated protective order governing discovery in this action. The Court entered the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order on April 9, 2025.

The Protective Order provides that material produced by a nonparty is automatically treated as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only" for thirty days following production without the need for an affirmative designation by a party. The Protective Order further prohibits the use of discovery material for any purpose unrelated to this litigation, including any public, commercial, business, or personal purpose. The Protective Order restricts access to material designated as "Highly Confidential" or "Outside Counsel Eyes Only" to specified persons and does not permit unrestricted public dissemination of such material….

On April 10, 2025, one day after entry of the Protective Order, Defendant again posted the surveillance footage to his social-media accounts. On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff formally designated the materials produced by the Miami Beach Police Department as "Highly Confidential," and Plaintiff's counsel communicated that designation to Defendant's counsel. Defendant's counsel then informed Defendant of the designation, after which Defendant removed the footage. Defendant contemporaneously published a social-media post acknowledging that he was "required under the rules to remove the video."

Notwithstanding his knowledge of the Protective Order and Plaintiff's confidentiality designation, Defendant again posted the surveillance footage on September 17, 2025…. Although Plaintiff requested severe evidentiary and litigation-ending sanctions [over this], the undersigned concluded that those sanctions were not then supported by the record because a lesser sanction had not previously been imposed for the violation. The undersigned instead awarded Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees and costs attributable to the sanctions motion and expressly admonished Defendant that the Protective Order was not optional. The undersigned further warned Defendant that any future violation of the Protective Order would be treated with the utmost seriousness, including case-dispositive sanctions.

After further proceedings concerning the amount of the award, the Court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff $15,000.00 no later than April 26, 2026….

Separate from the Protective Order dispute, the District Court addressed Defendant's social-media activity in connection with pretrial scheduling and discovery matters. On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to take Defendant's deposition and represented that Defendant had repeatedly scheduled and cancelled depositions based on asserted physical limitations while simultaneously publishing social-media content showing him engaged in activities including ice skating, kayaking, and bicycling. The District Court granted Plaintiff additional time to take Defendant's deposition and stated that it was "deeply disturbed by this trend." The District Court cautioned Defendant that sanctions, "potentially including the striking of Defendant's pleadings," would be imposed if the conduct continued….

[In a] February 20 Order, the District Court observed that the communications between the Parties had become "toxic," particularly in light of Defendant's online communications, and agreed with Plaintiff that the time had come for the matter to proceed toward resolution. The District Court stated that it was "deeply disturbed by Defendant's conduct," including his "continued social media attacks aimed at Plaintiff and its counsel" and his attempt to effect service at an address he knew belonged to Soffer's child. The District Court then expressly "DIRECT[ED] Defendant to cease such harassing conduct and social media references to Plaintiff and its counsel during the course of this litigation." …

In the Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff contends that Defendant continued to publish social-media content referencing Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and this litigation almost immediately after entry of the February 20 Order. Plaintiff identifies multiple occasions between February 26 and May 28, 2026, on which Defendant allegedly violated the Order. [For more details, see the opinion, but here's one example. -EV] …

The May 24, 2026 social media publications constitute perhaps the most egregious violations of the February 20 Order. To recap, in one video, Defendant alleged that a member of his family was confronted and threatened in Jerusalem by an individual who invoked Plaintiff's counsel. Defendant specifically identified Plaintiff's counsel as the attorney representing the hotel in this action and asserted that this lawsuit was filed to "intimidate and silence him" after he publicly alleged that he had been threatened with murder in an antisemitic attack. Defendant further stated that it "remains unknown whether anyone connected to the ongoing litigation had prior knowledge of, encouraged, or otherwise played any role in the confrontation" and that he "has endured nearly two years of legal and public harassment by [Plaintiff's counsel] and the hotel in an effort to financially and personally destroy him after speaking out about the alleged antisemitic attack."

In the other May 24, 2026 post, Defendant referred to Plaintiff, Soffer, and Plaintiff's counsel, Burstyn, by name, and questioned whether Burstyn appeared in materials associated with Jeffrey Epstein. The post also referenced Burstyn's representation of another client, questioned Burstyn's role in events preceding the death of Virginia Giuffre, criticized Burstyn's representation of Plaintiff, and concluded with an assertion concerning public distrust of attorneys, stating that Plaintiff's counsel "is the reason that 84% of Americans believe that attorneys are scumbags."

These posts did not merely allude to Plaintiff—they expressly identified Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and the upcoming trial. They therefore violated both components of the District Court's directive. They constituted social-media references to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, and they also plainly continued the very social-media attacks that prompted the District Court's intervention. These publications therefore fall squarely within the conduct the District Court sought to halt and cannot reasonably be characterized as compliance with the February 20 Order….

And the Magistrate Judge therefore recommended sanctions against the Defendant:

The totality of the record demonstrates that Defendant willfully chose to disregard a clear judicial command. It is undisputed that Defendant knew of the District Court's February 20 Order. Nevertheless, Defendant continued making prohibited social-media references over approximately three months.

The violations were not confined to a single publication or a single day. Instead, Defendant repeatedly returned to social media to discuss Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, and the pending litigation. That pattern is inconsistent with negligence or misunderstanding….

Further, Defendant knew the significance of an order, the requirement that he comply with an order, even if he disagreed with it, and the consequences for failing to follow an order. Not only has Defendant already been sanctioned for violating an order of this Court, but Defendant was also warned about the potential for graver consequences if he violates any other orders….

Turning to the issue of whether lesser sanctions would suffice, the record contains multiple warnings of escalating specificity. The District Court first warned Defendant on February 10, 2026 that continued misconduct could result in striking Defendant's pleadings. Then, on February 20, 2026, the District Court directed Defendant to cease social-media attacks and references to Plaintiff and its counsel. Less than one week later, the undersigned warned Defendant that Court Orders are not optional, that Defendant could not take matters into his own hands, and that future violations would be treated with the utmost seriousness, including the potential for Rule 37(b)(2)(A) sanctions. Those warnings did not produce compliance. Another admonition would repeat a measure the record has already shown to be ineffective with Defendant.

Further, the Court previously imposed a sanction in the form of a $15,000.00 fee award based on Defendant's knowing violation of the Protective Order. The violations of the February 20 Order followed that ruling and the accompanying admonition…. [T]he prior monetary sanction did not deter Defendant from again disregarding a pretrial directive….

At his deposition, Defendant admitted under oath that his social-media publications were intended to cause Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel to reconsider their conduct and litigation strategy. Consistent with that testimony, Defendant's May 24 and May 28 posts publicly accused Plaintiff of attempting to destroy him through this litigation, attacked Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel personally notwithstanding the Court's directive prohibiting such conduct, and attempted to rally public opinion by requesting "your support" in his trial "Against 'that Hotel' in Miami" where he will "absolutely defeat the antisemitism-deniers."

Defendant therefore used repeated violations of the Court's Order as an extrajudicial litigation tactic designed to influence whether, and under what conditions, Plaintiff continued to prosecute its claims against him. That objective directly implicates the integrity of the judicial process. The pattern of Defendant's repeated, willful violations of the February 20 Order when coupled with his stated intention behind his social-media posts and his history of sanctions and admonitions demonstrate that lesser sanctions will not suffice.

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that striking Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, dismissing his Counterclaim with prejudice, and entering default judgment as to liability on Plaintiff's well-pleaded claims constitute appropriately tailored remedies that address the institutional harm caused by Defendant's abuse of the judicial process. {This recommendation is not based upon any determination that Defendant's affirmative defenses or Counterclaim lack substantive merit. Rather, it is based upon Defendant's willful violation of this Court's Order, his deliberate use of those violations as a litigation tactic, and the demonstrated inadequacy of lesser sanctions to secure compliance or preserve the integrity of these proceedings.}

With that said, the recommendation of entry of default judgment would not, by itself, establish the amount of Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff would remain obligated to establish any unliquidated damages through appropriate evidence and further proceedings and Defendant would be able to defend against such damages claims….

[T]he Court [also] finds it appropriate to award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred as a result of litigating the Motion for Sanctions. The amount should be determined through a separate fee submission with Plaintiff bearing the burden to establish the reasonableness of its counsel's hourly rate along with the reasonableness of the requested fees….

The post "The AI Data Will Provide an Unrivaled View into the Mind of a Defendant …" appeared first on Reason Magazine.

From State v. Amyda, decided Friday by the Iowa Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Edward Mansfield:

In this sexual abuse case, we are asked to decide whether the district court erred in admitting a video. The video graphically shows the defendant abusing the victim. However, there was no chain-of-custody evidence connecting the video to the defendant. The victim was asleep at the time and could not personally attest to the abuse shown in the video. And the defendant claimed "deepfake."

On our review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video. The video came to the victim's attention about a month after the defendant had been in the victim's bedroom. The video appears to be taken by the perpetrator of the abuse at close range using a cellphone. It shows the victim sleeping, but she testified in detail that she recognized her bedroom, her bed and furnishings, the clothing she had been wearing, her legs and genitalia, and the defendant's tattooed hand—all as they had been that evening.

Collectively, these circumstances were enough to admit the video. And the defendant's mere speculation that the video was a deepfake was not enough to bar its admission….

The court concluded that the video had been adequately authenticated:

To authenticate the video, the State had to "produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Iowa R. Evid. 5.901(a). According to Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.901, one example of sufficient evidence is "[d]istinctive characteristics and the like." That is, evidence such as a video may be authenticated by its "appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances."

We applied this circumstantial-evidence principle in State v. Holderness (Iowa 1980). Holderness, which predated the adoption of the Iowa Rules of Evidence, was a burglary case involving the admissibility of a photograph. There the victim awoke to find that his garage doors were open and some of his property was missing. One of the missing items was a briefcase that contained, among other things, an Instamatic camera. Two hours later a boy in the neighborhood brought by a roll of Instamatic film that he had found. The film was developed. It turned out to have eight photographs the victim had taken recently in the course of his work and two additional photographs. One of those two photographs showed the defendant on his knees in the victim's backyard, near the garage, holding the briefcase partially open.

We held in Holderness that the photograph portraying the defendant with the briefcase outside the garage was properly admitted even though no one could directly confirm its accuracy or testify as to how it was taken. We began our discussion by observing,

Conventionally these foundation elements [for admission of a photograph] are shown by the direct testimony of a person who, although perhaps not connected with the photography, observed the scene and testifies that the picture fairly shows it, or who describes the photographic process employed and testifies it produces accurate pictures. These of course are the easier cases.

The harder cases are those in which direct testimony is not available and the proponent must rely on circumstances to lay a foundation for admission.

This, of course, was one of the "harder cases." … [W]e held [in Holderness] that the photograph could be authenticated based on a series of circumstances. The roll of film had been recovered nearby, the morning after the burglary. The victim had taken the previous photographs on the roll but not the ninth and tenth ones. The victim could identify his boat and his trash-can rack in the photograph in question. He testified that—apart from the presence of the defendant—the scene corresponded to the outside of his garage at the time of the burglary. And the victim further testified that the camera in the past had taken reliable photographs that had never come back modified, altered, or changed.

A few years later, … we … [upheld] the admission of photographs in another case. There the defendant was charged with having committed sexual abuse on three children—two girls and one boy. At trial, a number of photographs depicting the sexual activity were admitted into evidence. Several of the photographs were admitted through the testimony of the two girls. They testified that the defendant, or one of them at the defendant's direction, had taken those photographs. They identified the defendant in the photographs. However, five of the photographs were admitted through the testimony of a detective, who had been neither a photographer nor a firsthand observer. We summarized as follows:

Although the detective was not, like the girl victims, a direct witness to the depicted activities, he had observed the defendant's bedroom where other photographs were taken and testified that the decor of the room pictured in some of the photographs was that of the defendant's bedroom. Moreover, the five photographs in question were graphically similar to the many photographs properly admitted during the victims' testimony.

We concluded that "[t]he detective's testimony about the decor of the room, together with the photographs authenticated by the victims, satisfied the foundational requirements for admissibility of the five photographs admitted during the detective's testimony." …

Turning to the facts of this case, we agree with the district court and the court of appeals that the State presented sufficient evidence to authenticate the video.

The video appears to be taken with a cellphone held in the right hand of the person whose left hand is visible committing sexual abuse. Clara had communicated with Amyda by messaging him that evening; presumably, he would have brought his cellphone to their encounter. Also, Clara fell asleep in her bedroom with Amyda after they both had been drinking; the video shows her face and closed eyes as she is sleeping soundly. Further, Clara identified Amyda's tattooed hand, her bedroom, her bed and pillows, her clothing, and her legs and genitalia in the video. Indeed, the only thing in the video that Clara couldn't personally verify was the abuse itself. Moreover, the video surfaced a little over a month after May 5, and when Clara tried to communicate with Amyda about it, he blocked her.

Amyda argues that "[a]llowing an individual to authenticate a video that portrays an event by simply identifying 'distinctive characteristics' of items in the video, without more, effectively erases any protection that Rule 5.901 provides against the admission of fabricated evidence." But the circumstantial evidence here went beyond just the distinctive characteristics of items in a video. Furthermore, the distinctive characteristics here ranged from the private (Clara's bedroom) to the shockingly private (her genitalia). What third-party fabricator would have access to all that?

As the court of appeals noted, appellate cases from other jurisdictions have upheld the authentication of videos [in such situations]….

We are not oblivious to the risks of video evidence. Like the New York Court of Appeals, we recognize that "most fabricated videos 'leverage' real details from real photos and videos of real places and people, then alter the pieces the person wishes to alter to create a realistic, but manipulated, video." In re M.S. (N.Y. 2026). In In re M.S., New York's highest court ruled, over two separate dissents, that videos of sexual abuse obtained by a self-described hacker and provided to law enforcement well after the events in question—had not been sufficiently authenticated and should not have been admitted in a family court case. But here, by contrast, there are no identifiable circumstances to suggest that the video might be a deepfake.

For all these reasons, we agree that the video was properly authenticated ….

And the court likewise rejected the argument that the video should have been excluded under the so-called "best-evidence rule":

[T]he best-evidence rule … provides, "An original writing, recording, or photograph is required to prove its content, unless these rules or a statute provides otherwise." The rules also contain the following qualification: "A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate."

The State relies on this qualification to rebut Amyda's best-evidence argument. The State maintains that the video here was admissible as if it were the original because Amyda failed to raise a genuine question of authenticity. We agree with the State that Amyda didn't raise a genuine question, only conjecture.

Much of the closing argument made by Amyda's counsel urged the jury to conclude that the video was a deepfake. Yet his advocacy rested on popular culture rather than any of the evidence in the case. The closing argument began, "Is it fake? Is it real? Ladies and gentlemen, we live in the age of artificial intelligence." It continued, "In this state of artificial intelligence, people can manipulate a video to look like whatever they want to look—they want it to look like." Amyda's counsel proceeded to refer to various news stories about celebrities and other people who had been the subject of deepfake videos, including deepfake pornography.

But apart from trying to cash in on the so-called "liar's dividend," Amyda's counsel had little to work with. {The term "liar's dividend" refers to the possibility that public awareness of deepfakes will make it easier to raise doubts about legitimate evidence. See Bobby Chesney & Danielle Citron, Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security, 107 Cal. L. Rev. 1753, 1785–86 (2019) ("[A] skeptical public will be primed to doubt the authenticity of real audio and video evidence. This skepticism can be invoked just as well against authentic as against adulterated content.").} The prosecutor countered as follows in her rebuttal argument:

So when [defense counsel] is wa[ ]ving around articles and talking about deepfake porn, that is not evidence, ladies and gentlemen. That is not evidence. What is evidence is what you heard from that stand.

Fake video, imagine someone to make a fake video in this matter would have to know, as [Clara] described, the intrinsic details of her body.

Unfortunately, we had to talk a lot about private matters, right? They had her stretch marks on her legs that she identified. They had her vagina and the unshaven position as she recollected. They had stubble on her legs. They had her hair positioned as such.

They had her exact clothing that she would have been wearing the night she was with the defendant, and even more so, when he parted her labia, you can see that she has coloration down there. They would have to know all those intrinsic details to make up this video. Who would know that?

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Amyda's best-evidence objection. See State v. Christian Church (Del. Super. Ct. 2025) ("The mere suggestion that a video may have been altered does not create such a genuine issue."); Perry v. United States (D.C. 2026) (indicating that the defendant needed to provide "some basis" to think that the Instagram video was an inaccurate reproduction)….

Joshua Henry (Iowa Assistant AG) represents the state.

The post Claiming Video Was "Deepfake" Not Enough to Require Excluding It, Even Absent Evidence of Who Recorded It appeared first on Reason Magazine.