Docket entry 70, 1 November 2024 · source · PDF · 4 pages
Docket text. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, by November 15, 2024, why the Court should not: (i) dismiss Plaintiff's remaining ADEA claims as a sanction for violating Rule 11; (ii) require Plaintiff to pay attorney's fees and costs incurred by Defendant in responding to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; (iii) impose some other sanction for Plaintiff's failure to verify authorities and legal statements incorporated into his filings; (iv) going forward, require Plaintiff to identify, under penalty of perjury, all cases, legal propositions, and factual assertions incorporated into any paper that will be filed with the Court (including his response to this Order) that are generated in whole or in part by any artificial intelligence tool and whether Plaintiff verified the cited cases, propositions, and assertions. Further, any factual assertions in Plaintiff's response to this Order must be supported by sworn affidavit or declaration and, if relied upon, properly authenticated evidence. At Defendant's option, it may submit a reply to Plaintiff's response to this Order by December 2, 2024. Defendant also may provide an estimate of fees and costs incurred in responding to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed on 11/1/2024 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 11/1/2024.) (mja) Modified on 11/1/2024 to correct response deadline to 12/2/2024 (mja). (Main Document 70 replaced on 11/1/2024) (cw). (Entered: 11/01/2024)
These false citations and misleading case descriptions appear to be hallmarks of an artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool, such as ChatGPT. It is now well known that AI tools “hallucinate” fake cases. See Kruse v.
App. 2024) (noting, in February 2024, that the issue of fictitious cases being submitted to courts had gained “national attention”).1 In addition, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a simple internet search seeking guidance on whether it is advisable to use AI tools to conduct legal research or draft legal filings will return search results explaining that any legal authorities or legal analysis generated by AI needs to be verified. In addition, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, titled “Representations to the Court,” “imposes a duty of ‘reasonable inquiry’” to ensure, among other things, that “anything filed with the court is . . .
1994); see also Kruse, 692 S.W.3d at 52-54 (where pro se party submitted “fictitious and incorrect legal authorities” and violated additional court rules, court imposing sanction of $10,000 despite recognizing pro se party’s “admissions and remorse” and “the challenges placed on pro se litigants who are unable to afford legal counsel” (construing and applying state analogue to Rule 11)).