Docket entry 48, 25 November 2024 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: granting 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend its Response. If Goodyear chooses, it may file a reply to the Amended Response within seven days of this order. If Goodyear files such a reply, Plaintiff may file a sur-reply within seven days of the reply. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 11/25/2024. (CC: by email, Finance). (KMH) Modified text on 11/26/2024 (KMH). (Entered: 11/25/2024)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JAMES GAUTHIER, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-281 § GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the court is the question of whether Plai ntiff’s counsel, Brandon Monk (“Monk”), should be sanctioned for submitting a response brief to the court that includes case cites generated by artificial intelligence that refer to nonexistent cases as well as to nonexistent quotations. After issuing a show cause order, the court held a hearing on November 21, 2024, in which Monk was asked to show cause as to why the court should not impose sanctions.
On October 2, 2024, Monk, acting as counsel for Plaintiff, filed a response in opposition to Goodyear’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) (“Response”). As observed by Goodyear in its reply (#42), Monk’s Response cites two cases that do not exist. 1 In addition, the Response includes multiple quotations that 1 The nonexistent cases are “Roca v.
16, 1994) (unpublished).” cannot be located within the cited authority.2 On October 9, 2024, Monk filed a sur-reply (#43) that failed to address the issues Goodyear raised in its reply concerning the authenticity of the case law included in the Response.
The court set the matter for a hearing on November 21, 2024. On November 15, 2024, Monk filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended DKT 41 (#45), wherein he admits to committing error and requests leave to amend his Response to remove the citations to the nonexistent cases and quotations. On Thursday, November 21, 2024, the court held the show cause hearing on the matter.
On Thursday, November 21, 2024, the court held the show cause hearing on the matter. Monk explained that he used a generative artif icial intelligence (“A.I.”) tool to produce the Response and failed to verify the content.3 Monk further recounted that he attempted to check the 2 The Response cites nonexistent quotations from the following cases: Morales v. SimuFlite Training Int’l, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 603 (Tex.
O’Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. 2000), as well as from the hallucinatory case, Roca v. King’s Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F.
In fact, it is unclear what legal research, if any, Monk completed before filing the Response. Furthermore, after Goodyear specifically identified the nonexistent legal authorities cont ained in the Response, Monk took no action to verify his research. He failed to withdraw or otherwise address theses issues when raised by Goodyear.