A Connecticut federal judge has hit the brakes on discovery while she considers Yale University’s attempt to shut down a lawsuit filed by a student accused of using artificial intelligence to cheat on a final exam.

In an order entered Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Sarah F. Russell said Yale and several university officials “have presented sufficiently substantial arguments for dismissal,” enough to justify a temporary pause while she reviews their motion. The judge emphasized that she was not predicting whether she will ultimately toss the case but noted that three critical factors—laid out in the 2020 precedent Metzner v. Quinnipiac University—weighed in favor of a stay.

Court Says All Factors Support Yale’s Push for a Pause

Judge Russell evaluated the “strength of the dispositive motion,” the scope and burden of the requested discovery, and the “prejudice a stay would have on the non-moving party.” According to her order, all three considerations tilted decisively toward the defendants.

The court rejected plaintiff Thierry Rignol’s argument that a delay could harm his case, saying his concerns amounted to speculation about fading memories. “Beyond speculating that witnesses’ memories may fade during a stay, plaintiff has not demonstrated that a stay will undermine his eventual ability to prosecute this action,” the judge wrote.

Student Claims AI Tool Wrongly Triggered His Suspension

Rignol, a French national enrolled in Yale’s Executive MBA program, filed suit on Feb. 3 seeking to overturn what he describes as a “wrongful, discriminatory, and procedurally lawless” one-year suspension and failing grade. He alleges that Yale relied on an unreliable AI detection tool—contrary to its own academic standards—to accuse him of cheating on a final exam.

His 10-count complaint includes claims of breach of contract, national origin discrimination under Title VI, retaliation, defamation, false light, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, among other allegations.

Yale Argues the Case Cannot Proceed at All

The defendants’ Sept. 17 motion to stay argued that Rignol’s “claims are weak,” saying their pending dismissal motion is likely to end the case outright and make discovery unnecessary. The filing leans on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Gupta v. New Britain General Hospital, contending that courts are barred from second-guessing academic disciplinary decisions.

“Put simply, the law precludes plaintiff from doing what he seeks to do in this lawsuit,” the university wrote.

Rignol countered in an Oct. 8 memo that although he has “returned to the program,” delaying discovery prolongs the “wrongful” stain on his academic record and continues to damage his professional prospects. He argued that the stay only perpetuates the stigma associated with the suspension, which remains visible on his transcript.

Legal Teams Keep Quiet as the Case Awaits Its Fate

Counsel for Rignol did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday, while Yale’s attorneys declined to comment.

Rignol is represented by Stuart Bernstein, Andrew T. Miltenberg and Kimberly S. Courtney of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, along with Audrey A. Felsen of Koffsky & Felsen LLC. Yale and the other defendants are represented by James M. Sconzo and Brendan N. Gooley of Carlton Fields PC.