Braun v. Day

Docket entry 153, 12 May 2026 · source · PDF · 5 pages

Docket text. RESPONSE by Defendants Rebekah M Day, Lily Marston to Response,, 150 [STATEMENT REGARDING ACCURACY OF CITATIONS IN PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE] (Witkow, Brandon) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

Braun’s declaration not the cases cited in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, but they in no way relate to or stand for the propositions for which Plaintiffs have cited them. The conclusion that must be drawn from Plaintiffs’ repeated misrepresentations to this Court (first in Plaintiffs’ motion by citing to nonexistent case citations, and second in Ms. Braun’s sworn declaration that Exhibits A, B, and C stand for the propositions cited in her Motion) is that Plaintiffs did use AI tools to conduct legal research for the Motion to Compel, despite Ms.

Docket entry 138, 29 April 2026 · source · PDF · 18 pages

Docket text. RESPONSE by Defendant Rebekah M Day to motion to compel 135 (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Brandon J. Witkow)(Witkow, Brandon) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

The citation record independently confirms the absence of any prefiling review. Of the nine cases cited in the Day Motion, at least three appear to be AI hallucinations. EEOC v.

Jan. 18, 2008) -- cited at pages 3, 4, and 5, respectively -- cannot be located by docket number, WL citation, or party name in any legal database. This is precisely the failure mode courts have identified when AI-generated briefs go unreviewed: the model produces citations with the syntax of real opinions that correspond to no actual decision.

3d 443, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, at *40 ( ¶ 113) (“by obtaining these nonexistent case citations and accompanying quotations using AI without independently verifying their accuracy, Mr. Panichi failed to comply with the Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, which emphasizes that attorneys “are accountable for their final work product” and “must thoroughly review AI -generated content before submi tting it in any court proceeding to ensure accuracy and compliance with legal and ethical obligations ”).

A basic Westlaw search before signing would have exposed both. 3 See BKA Holdings, LLC, 2025 IL App (2d) 250160- U, ¶ 23 (awarding sanctions and striking reply brief that included AI hallucinated cases). 3 Other citations in the Day Motion fare little better.

Independently, the Motion and substantial portions thereof are subject to being stricken because Braun submitted AI -generated content, including ChatGPT’s own structural directives , to this Court without any meaningful prefiling review, submitting at least t hree non-existent citations and multiple demonstrably misapplied ones in the process.

Docket entry 138, 29 April 2026 · source · PDF · 135 pages

Docket text. RESPONSE by Defendant Rebekah M Day to motion to compel 135 (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Brandon J. Witkow)(Witkow, Brandon) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

Zubha POP Foods LLC discusses the decision and further rules “We believe ‘[a] reasonable attorney would have thoroughly reviewed the briefs he submitted to this court to ensure that his arguments were meritorious and that his citations were accurate.’ In re Baby Boy, 2025 IL App (4th) 241427, ¶ 119. While plaintiffs may not have intentionally submitted fictitious cases to this Court, they intentionally neglected to check their citations to authority before filing their briefs, and they repeatedly filed incomprehensible briefs unsupported by case law and citations to the record. Accordingly, we strike plaintiffs' opening and reply brief and dismiss the appeal.

If generative AI was used in a legal pleading or brief, included citations may be entirely made up or be a real case but not contain the purported language cited” https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois- Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail/ BRAUN’s REPLY 19.