AI-Generated Evidence in NC Courts: Authentication, Admissibility, and Sanctions Risk
From AI-drafted affidavits to algorithmically flagged documents in e-discovery, North Carolina courts are grappling with new authentication questions that existing evidentiary rules were not designed to answer.
The North Carolina Rules of Evidence require that any document offered as evidence be authenticated -- that is, supported by evidence sufficient to support a finding that it is what the proponent claims. For traditional documents, this is a routine exercise. For AI-generated content, the authentication question is substantially more complex.
The Fabrication Problem
Generative AI models are capable of producing plausible-sounding but entirely fabricated case citations, regulatory text, and expert analysis. When such content makes its way into court filings without independent verification, attorneys face exposure under Rule 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), Rule 3.4 (fairness to opposing parties), and potentially NCRCP Rule 11. Federal courts applying FCRP Rule 11 have imposed sanctions; North Carolina state courts will follow.
E-Discovery and AI-Assisted Review
AI-assisted document review is now standard in large-scale litigation and is generally accepted by courts when properly validated. The Sedona Principles and emerging North Carolina federal court guidance both endorse technology-assisted review with appropriate quality control. Attorneys must be prepared to disclose the tools used, validation methodology, and error rates if challenged.