Docket entry 26, 14 July 2025 · source · PDF · 9 pages
Docket text. Response to Order to Show Cause
As detailed below, Plaintiff has conducted a thorough review of all briefs submitted in this action, identified all instances of inaccurate quotations, and provides explanation for how they occurred. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court decline to issue sanctions, as these errors do not involve fabricated cases or intentional misconduct, distinguish from cases imposing sanctions for AI-generated "hallucinations," and Plaintiff has taken immediate remedial steps to prevent recurrence. This response is supported by the attached Declaration of Christopher M.
COUNSEL IS DEEPLY EMBARRASED AND REGRETFUL AND PRAYS THAT THE COURT SHOW LENIENCY IN LIGHT OF THE UNINTENTIONAL NATURE OF THESE ERRORS. Counsel prays respectfully that this Court would not issue sanctions, as the inaccuracies stem from an unintentional editing error during grammar refinement, not from bad faith, fabricated cases, or AI "hallucinations" (i.e., generating nonexistent authorities). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) requires good-faith inquiry and non-frivolous arguments, but courts exercise discretion in imposing sanctions, considering intent, remedial actions, and the nature of the error.
B. Distinguished from AI "Hallucination" Cases Warranting Sanctions Courts imposing sanctions for AI misuse typically involve "hallucinations" which generate fake cases or holdings – often during substantive research, not editing. In Mata v.
In Mata v. Avianca, attorneys used ChatGPT for legal research, submitting six (6) nonexistent cases, leading to a $5,000 fine for bad faith. Mata v.
(emphasis added). These cases underscore the severity of citing nonexistent cases, a contrast to the present situation where all 226 citations are real, and the errors limited to altered wording in thirteen (13) quotes or partial-quotes from valid authorities, namely Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S.
The cases where sanctions were imposed involve 8 deliberate or reckless reliance on AI for substantive content, unlike Counsel’s limited use of Copilot for grammar edits. In counsel’s review of instances where sanctions, fines or costs were imposed, it appears that all of them involved “hallucinated” case cites (cases that do not exist and are used to purport and support an argument before the Court). In this instance, Counsel’s use of the quote, while erroneous, was cited to an actual case, and a case that in fact did support the arguments being raised to this Court.