Colbert v. County of Riverside

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Compl. ¶¶ 13-20. Plaintiff's Opposition includes a quotation of purported language from § 845.4 (Opp. at 5); however, the court could not locate the quoted statutory language in § 845.4 or any other section of the California Government Code. Nor could the court find any case, federal or state, containing the quoted language. This suggests counsel may have used artificial intelligence to draft the opposition memorandum and failed to confirm the accuracy of the citations and quotes. All counsel who appear before this court must comply with the California Rules of Professional Conduct and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, among other things, not make false statements of fact or law. See, e.g., Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Although this court has not yet enacted rules or orders specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence, this does not permit counsel to submit a brief with non-existent authority. Cf. Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (“A fake opinion is not ‘existing law’ and ... [a]n attempt to persuade court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an

Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)