Docket entry 54, 17 November 2025 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Docket text. Sanctions ORDER For the reasons stated herein, the court orders a monetary sanction in the amount of $500. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 11/17/2025. (Barry, L.) (Entered: 11/17/2025)
No. 46) (“Opposition Brief”) containing multiple fabricated citations to legal authority resulting from the use of Descrybe.AI, an artificial intelligence based legal research tool. See Declaration of David P.
In doing so, Attorney Stich abdicated his responsibilities under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court must now consider what sanctions are proper for an attorney who submits a pleading containing “hallucinated,” i.e., fake, citations to the court in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. II.
II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The court assumes familiarity with the general factual background of the instant action, focusing instead only on the events pertinent to the papers containing fabricated citations. Plaintiff commenced this action on December 23, 2023, alleging, inter alia, that defendant, in his capacity as owner and operator of a pizza restaurant, willfully failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to the plaintiff in violation of the Fair Labor 2 Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq.
Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, submitting the Memorandum at issue in this Order. In preparing its Ruling on the Motion to Vacate, the court identified certain citations to legal authorities in the plaintiff’s Opposition Brief that were nonexistent. Upon suspicion that the defective citations were the product of artificial intelligence (“AI”), the court issued an Order to Show Cause addressed to Attorney Stich.
49). In that Order to Show Cause, the court identified three cases, purportedly from this District, which the court could not locate despite its best efforts. Id.
Underhill, Davila v. Roblen, LLC et al., 3:23-cv-00512-SRU, Attorney Stich is also subject to another Order to Show Cause for filing a brief containing AI generated, nonexistent legal authority. See 3:23-cv- 00512-SRU, Order to Show Cause (Doc.
52). Stich expressed “sincere and unreserved apology” for the nonexistent citations and explained that it was his first use of an AI tool. Id. at ¶ 1.
While Descrybe.AI has both free and paid functionalities, Attorney Stich had purchased a license for the tool, which he has since canceled. As a result of the hallucinated citations in both this matter and in the separate proceeding before Judge Underhill, see supra n.1, Attorney Stitch stated he would cease all use of artificial intelligence in his legal practice. While Attorney Stitch is presently a solo practitioner, he explained that he will ensure no one in his employ in the future will use AI.