Docket entry 18, 23 June 2026 · source · PDF · 10 pages
Docket text. NOTICE by ANTHONY WHITFIELD re 16 Response in Opposition to Motion, 13 Response in Opposition to Motion, of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Supplemental Authority (McCormick v. Texakoma Fin., Inc.))(Perrong, Andrew) (Entered: 06/23/2026)
On May 28, 2026, less than one hour before the show cause hearing, Ginsburg filed a response to the order to show cause (Dkt. #24) (the “Order to Show Cause Response”). At the start of her Order to Show Cause Response, Ginsburg represented that she wanted “to explain how the filing occurred, correct the erroneous [fictitious] Noviello citation, and accept responsibility for the failure to verify the final version had been filed” (Dkt. #24 at p. 1).
The Order to Show Cause Response includes the “correct” case, written by United States Magistrate Judge David Horan, but the case does not include the quotes attributed to it. Ginsburg also attempted to explain the fact that the Reply identified the fictitious case, quotations, and propositions. Allegedly, during a team meeting, the only issue that came up was “that our case law was not on point, which is not unusual as attorneys typically differentiate [case law]” (Dkt. #24 at p.
At the hearing, Ginsburg represented that she could not know for certain whether AI was used to draft the Motion for Summary Judgment Response, because the law clerk or intern that drafted it is no longer with her law firm. She reiterated that the Reply did not put her on notice about the fictitious case, quotes, and propositions because the only topic that arose at a team meeting was that the cases in the Motion for Summary Judgment Response were allegedly not on point. She also claimed that she had recognized the fictitious case because her husband represented one of the named parties in the correct version of the case, and that she then corrected her version of the brief.
Government Works. 3 Ginsburg acknowledged that submitting fictitious cases, quotes, and propositions is sanctionable under Rule 11 and the local rules. The Court asked Ginsburg what sanction would be appropriate under the circumstances, and Ginsburg stated that she did not know, because she has never been sanctioned before and has worked on thousands of cases without incident.
The Court then asked Ginsburg whether she had anything else to share, and she expressed that she is extremely apologetic and that she would never knowingly submit fictitious citations. *3 The Court then asked defense counsel if he had a position on sanctions.
I. The Citations Ginsburg's Motion for Summary Judgment Response contains three categories of serious errors: a fictitious case, fictitious quotes, and unsupported propositions. MATT MCCORMICK, Plaintiff, v.
Government Works. 4 Fictitious Case. Instead of citing the fictitious case,4 the Court includes a screenshot of the portion of the Motion for Summary Judgment Response that cites the case (Dkt. #21-1 at p.
The Westlaw reporter number leads to a petition in a New Jersey personal injury case. Further detail regarding the case is unnecessary—Ginsburg concedes the case is fictitious. Her explanation for this error will be addressed below.