Your Court Restricted AI in Discovery. We Built the Solution.
Self-Hosted AI Document Processing for Litigation
Documents never leave our hardware. Affidavits ready to file. Satisfies Morgan v. V2X, Jeffries v. Harcros, and every protective order in between.
Courts Are Restricting AI in Discovery
In 2026, federal courts began issuing protective orders that restrict AI use in discovery. Morgan v. V2X (D. Colo.) established three requirements: no training on input data, no third-party disclosure, and the right to delete. Jeffries v. Harcros (D. Kan.) expanded these restrictions to ALL discovery materials, not just privileged documents.
The result: A compliance gap. Small and mid-size firms cannot afford enterprise eDiscovery platforms ($75K-$300K annually) but face court orders prohibiting consumer AI tools. Traditional document review is too expensive for most cases, yet non-compliant AI use risks sanctions.
The Challenge:
How do you process discovery documents efficiently while satisfying judicial restrictions on AI? Every major platform (Relativity, Disco, Logikcull) operates in the cloud with third-party data processing—exactly what courts are now prohibiting.
Closed-Circuit Architecture
Morgan v. V2X Requirements
No training on inputs
Self-hosted models, no internet-connected AI
Technical affidavit + architecture diagram
No third-party disclosure
Documents never leave physical hardware
Contractual guarantee + network isolation cert
Right to delete
DoD 5220.22-M secure erasure
Destruction protocol + sample certificate
Jeffries v. Harcros Requirements
No 'open' AI systems
Air-gapped inference engine
Network topology affidavit
Practical clawback
All data on controlled hardware, no model training
Technical affidavit + data lifecycle
Affidavits and Declarations
Declaration of AI Processing Practices
Sworn declaration describing closed-circuit architecture, data handling, and security controls.
Case-Specific Declaration + Technical Affidavit
Tailored to your case number, jurisdiction, and protective order language.
Full Compliance Package
Declaration + Technical Affidavit + Data Handling Certification + Sample Protective Order Language
Sample Protective Order Language
Pre-drafted clauses attorneys can insert into protective orders or stipulations.
Full eDiscovery Processing
Bates Stamping
$0.02/page (digital documents)
Full-Text Indexing + Search
$5/GB
AI Document Abstraction
$0.12/doc
Deduplication
$3/GB
Privilege Review Flagging
$0.12/doc
Responsive/Non-Responsive Classification
$0.12/doc
All-In Bundle
$0.35/document
Includes all services above for comprehensive document processing
Competitive Advantage
Every competitor is cloud-hosted. We are the only architecture satisfying Morgan and Jeffries protective order requirements.
Pre-Qualify Our Service for Your Case
The Legal Authority
Morgan v. V2X, Inc.
No. 25-1991 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2026)
Established the three-prong test for AI tools in discovery
Jeffries v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc.
No. 25-2569-KHV-ADM (D. Kan. 2026)
Extended restrictions to all discovery materials
In re Heppner
No. 24-CV-2653 (S.D.N.Y. 2026)
Consumer AI without attorney relationship waives privilege
Warner v. Gilbarco
No. 6:24-cv-01798-AA (D. Or. 2026)
Work product protection survives AI use with proper controls
Sidley Austin analysis
Safeguard-based framework over tool-specific prohibitions
Need compliant AI processing for an active case?
Documents stay on our hardware. Affidavits ready to file. Satisfy any protective order.