Docket entry 142, 25 March 2025 · source · PDF · 8 pages
Docket text. Order on Motion to Amend/Correct
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ABINGDON DIVISION VLADIMIR KRUGLYAK, ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No.: 1:22cv00024 v . ) ) MEMORANDUM ORDER HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., ) Defendant. ) On December 4, 2024, the court, on its own initiative, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11(c)(3), its contempt power and its inherent authority to protect the integrity of its proceedings and rulings, ordered the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b) and/or held in contempt for citing fictitious cases in his Plaintiff’s Reply To Defendant’s Response In Opposition To Motion To […]
The court in Hunter noted that the Advisory Committee considered that a show cause order issued by a court on its own initiative would be used “in situat ions that are akin to a contempt of court …” 281 F.3d at 151. As stated above, Kruglyak, the pro se plai ntiff, both cited to fictitious cases and misrepresented the holding of various ca ses in a reply brief he filed with the court. In his Response to the court’s show cause order, he conceded the inclusion of “fictitious cases and the mischaracterizations of case holdings,” but he claimed this was not done with a purpose to mislead the c ourt or to gain an unfair advantage.
Kruglyak explained that he had limited access to legal research tools, such as LexisNexis and Westlaw, to verify the authenticity and accuracy of his case citations. He further explained that, whil e he was unaware at the time he filed the pleading at issue that such generative AI platforms could produce fictitious or inaccurate case citations, he now has learned that fi ctitious citations and case summaries may be generated without clear warnings regarding their reliability. The court notes that, while generati ve AI platforms, such as ChatGPT 1 and Gemini, can be useful tools for attorneys and pro se litigants alike, they continue to have their shortcomings.
It has beco me widely known that such platforms sometimes “hallucinate,” meaning they provi de inaccurate responses. In the legal research context, these hallucinations can include the generation of fictitious case 1 ChatGPT, owned by OpenAI, is one of the mo st popular generative AI models. Gemini is Google’s AI model and was fo rmerly known as Google Bard.
3d at 456. The att orney entered various prompts into ChatGPT, which hallucinated holdings and cases. See Mata, 678 F.
3d at 450. When the attorney’s reliance on fictitious cases came to light, the judge scheduled a show cause hearing, threatening sanctions under Rule 11(b)(2) and (c), among other things. See Mata, 678 F.
3d at 457- 58. The attorneys subsequently lied to the court about their availability and doubled down on the cases, claiming they were not fabricated. See Mata, 678 F.
3d at 452, 458. One of the attorneys stated in a declaration that he could not “fathom that ChatGPT could produce multi ple fictitious cases.” Mata, 678 F. Supp.