Published opinion, 4 April 2025 · source · PDF · 6 pages
25) (“Mot.”). 2 The defendants likewise observe that the Motion “fabricates authority that does not exist.” See Defs.’ Opp’n to Pet.’s Mot. to Compel (Dkt. 26) ¶ 43.
2004) (recognizing that relying on “non - existent precedent generated by” AI is “an abuse of the adversary system” (citation 2024-0102-LWW April 4, 2025 Page 4 of 6 The petitioner’s submission of a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable.13 “[I]t is improper and unacceptable for litigants —including pro se litigants—to submit ‘non -existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.’”14 At the same time, “Delaware judges traditionally (and naturally) treat self-represented individuals with some degree of latitude” so long as the party’s pro se status does not “impose[] on the party opponent in a material way.”15 Mindful of these interests, I would have been inclined to […]
New York City Dep’t of Educ ., 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024) (“Sanctions may be imposed for submitting false and nonexistent legal authority to the Court.” (citations omitted)). 14 Id.
Supp. 3d at 448); Morgan, 2023 WL 6976510, at *7 (“Although courts ‘make some allowances for the pro se [p]laintiff’s failure to cite to proper legal authority,’ courts do not make allowances for a [party] who cites to fake, nonexistent, misleading authorities.” (quoting James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir.
Sept. 6, 2024) (reminding a pro se litigant that she must comply with procedural rules and that “future filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions such as dismissal of her claims”) ; Dukuray v. Experian Info.