Docket entry 135, 26 May 2026 · source · PDF · 14 pages
Docket text. ORDER denying 125 Motion for Protective Order; denying 132 Motion for Protective Order. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to file copies of the cases cited in his brief ing within one week of the entry of this Order, see supra Section II.A, and Plaintiff is advised that future filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, including but not limited to dismissal of the case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to te1minate the pending motion (Docket Nos. 125, 132), and mail a copy of this Order to the prose Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy on 5/26/2026) (vfr)
125 at 15). This raises concern that these cases may be the result of generative artificial intelligence hallucinations.7 See Smith v. Smith, 5:25-CV-1077 (MAD/DJS), 2025 WL 3706691, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y.
6 All page number citations herein refer to the page number assigned upon electronic filing unless otherwise noted. 7 “Generative artificial intelligence tools can fabricate or ‘hallucinate’ legal precedent.” Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, 1:25-cv-2857-GHW, 2025 WL 1916119, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
7.2 (“Upon request, counsel must provide the pro se litigant with copies of such unpublished cases and other authorities as are cited in a decision of the court and were not previously cited by any party.”). - 7 - Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to provide copies of the aforementioned cases to the Court within one week of the entry of this Order. Further, Plaintiff is advised that “filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, such as [his] submissions being stricken, filing restrictions or monetary penalties being imposed, or the case being dismissed.” Dukuray, 2024 WL 3812259, at *12. B.