AI Disclosure Rules in the District of New York, Eastern

The Eastern District of New York covers Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island — a densely populated jurisdiction handling a massive volume of civil rights cases, immigration disputes, personal injury litigation, and organized crime prosecutions. EDNY sits literally across the river from the Southern District of New York, where Mata v. Avianca made AI in litigation a national issue. Despite that proximity, EDNY has taken a notably different approach: no formal AI rules at all.

AI Disclosure Rules in the District of New York, Eastern

The Eastern District of New York has no district-wide rule, general order, or local rule amendment addressing generative AI use in court filings. There is no blanket disclosure requirement, no certification mandate, and no formal guidance from the chief judge.

This is striking given the district's position next to SDNY, where multiple judges have issued standing orders and Mata v. Avianca created the foundational AI sanctions precedent. The contrast illustrates a broader reality identified in the March 2026 NYC Bar study: 41.7% of federal courts have no meaningful AI governance, including some that sit within the most active AI-litigation circuits.

The 2nd Circuit has not issued circuit-wide guidance, which means EDNY's silence is technically unremarkable from a regulatory standpoint. But practically, attorneys who practice across both SDNY and EDNY — which is most of the New York bar — face a jarring inconsistency. A brief filed in Manhattan may require AI disclosure; the same brief filed in Brooklyn may not.

Individual Judge Standing Orders

No judges in the Eastern District of New York have issued publicly known standing orders specifically addressing generative AI use. This is notable for a district with a large bench and a heavy caseload, particularly given that its 2nd Circuit sibling in Manhattan has been the national leader on this issue.

With over 300 federal judges nationwide now maintaining individual AI orders, EDNY's bench will likely adopt some form of AI guidance. Attorneys should monitor PACER and individual judge pages for updates. The district's large number of magistrate judges — who handle discovery disputes and pretrial matters where AI-assisted research is common — are a likely starting point for AI-specific orders.

Key AI Cases in EDNY

EDNY has not produced its own AI sanctions case, but Mata v. Avianca (SDNY, 2023) is controlling 2nd Circuit precedent. Attorney Steven Schwartz's $5,000 sanction for filing ChatGPT-fabricated citations sent shockwaves through the entire New York legal community — EDNY included. The Couvrette case ($109,700 in sanctions) further demonstrated the escalating consequences.

For EDNY practitioners, the relevance is direct. The same 2nd Circuit panel that would hear an appeal from SDNY hears appeals from EDNY. The ethical standards set by Mata apply with equal force in Brooklyn and Central Islip as they do in the Foley Square courthouse.

What Attorneys in EDNY Should Do

**Apply SDNY standards in EDNY.** If you practice in the New York federal courts, build your workflow around the most stringent requirements — Judge Castel's and Judge Cronan's SDNY orders. Meeting those standards in EDNY keeps you safe if rules change or cases are transferred.

**Check individual judge practices on every case.** The absence of a district-wide rule does not mean individual judges have not added AI requirements to specific cases. Review scheduling orders and case management orders for any AI-related provisions.

**Verify all citations independently.** EDNY's heavy civil rights and immigration docket often involves complex statutory interpretation where AI tools may generate plausible-sounding but incorrect analysis. Pull every case. Read every statute. Confirm every holding.

**Disclose proactively in all filings.** A brief footnote costs nothing and signals professionalism. In a district that has not yet adopted formal requirements, proactive disclosure positions you favorably with any judge.

**Track AI use separately for each matter.** If you handle cases in both SDNY and EDNY — as many New York attorneys do — maintain consistent AI documentation practices across all matters. Different disclosure requirements on different cases creates confusion. One standard, applied everywhere, solves this.

The Bottom Line

The Eastern District of New York is operating without formal AI rules, but it exists in the shadow of the most consequential AI-litigation district in the country. Mata v. Avianca is 2nd Circuit law. The SDNY judges who shaped the national AI disclosure framework sit in courthouses a subway ride away.

EDNY's formal rules will catch up. The question is whether your practice will be ready when they do. Build for the SDNY standard now, and EDNY compliance comes free.