The Fontainebleau Florida Hotel and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach are fighting over whether his communications with AI platforms can be subpoenaed in the damages phase of a defamation case. According to Reason, the hotel's lawyers argue that his AI prompts and chats are the most direct evidence of whether he acted with a specific intent to harm a finding that, under Fla. Stat. § 768.73(1)(c), would remove the statutory cap on punitive damages. They describe the material as 'mental state reduced to writing' and say post-defamation conduct can be probative of intent.
Boteach's response disputes the scope of that discovery. He says the requests go far beyond damages and would capture every responsive AI exchange about the litigation, the hotel, opposing counsel, court orders, and judges. His lawyers characterize the subpoenas as an 'unrestricted inquiry' into research and litigation conduct, and they argue the court should enforce the reopening order and preserve work-product objections.
The parties appear to agree that the central question is whether AI communications fall within the court's damages-only discovery order. They sharply differ on the answer: the hotel sees the material as uniquely direct evidence of the defendant's state of mind, while Boteach sees it as an improper attempt to obtain broad, protected information under the guise of damages discovery.