Docket entry 126, 29 September 2026 · source · PDF · 5 pages
Docket text. ORDER MAKING ABSOLUTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND IMPOSING RULE 11 SANCTION SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 09/29/2026. (jrobe, )
Krenning, LLC and individual counsel Troy D. Krenning for the quotation of non-existent language from an unpublished Tenth Circuit decision in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Under Fed. R.
App’x 862 (10th Cir. 2009), came to be in the Motion because “language originating from [his] own notes and summaries ultimately appeared in the [M]otion as though it were a quotation from a case,” and not because “AI generated a fictitious case or a fictitious quotation.” (Id. at ¶ 12.) Regardless of whether the nonexistent language was a byproduct of AI or Mr. Krenning’s own summation of the case, however, he acknowledges that this error was “preventable.” (Id. at ¶ 23.) By Mr.
Krenning’s account, he completed the Motion “shortly before it was due” and “transmitted it to [his] paralegal with instructions to file it” without further “proofreading or citation review.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) He admits “that additional review almost certainly would have identified the problem before the motion was filed.” (Id. at ¶ 14; see also id. at ¶ 23 (“Had I performed a final verification of the quotations and citations contained in the motion, the error would have been discovered and corrected.”).) The Court, of course, has no way of knowing whether the nonexistent quotation from Miller was a product of Mr.
Krenning’s research and drafting process or the use of AI, but it will accept his representations as true. Even so, “[t]here is no question that . . . attributing a nonexistent quotation to an existing case . . . violates Rule 11(b).” Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., 2026 WL 265581, at *10 (D.
1:25-cv-00769-WJM-KAS Document 126 filed 09/29/26 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 5 4 ChatGPT, Harvey.AI, or Google Gemini) in preparing the filing, signed by all individuals who contributed to the drafting of the filing. To the extent that generative AI was used in any drafting of the filing, each individual must certify that any language drafted by AI (even if later edited by a human) was personally reviewed by the filer or another human for accuracy and that all legal citations reference actual non-fictitious cases or cited authority. The AI Certification does not count against any page limitations.