Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Joseph Guy v. AFGE

United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Federal district courts · CA · 2026-05-13 · No. 25-cv-03698-SI · order

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-05-13, in Joseph Guy v. AFGE, the Northern District of California ordered the plaintiff to explain why sanctions should not issue for misquoting a discovery case. Counsel filed a motion using quotations that did not appear in the cited source and nonexistent or hallucinated authorities.

Disposition: The motion was denied and counsel was ordered to file a declaration explaining the fabricated case quotations.
Recorded conduct: Guy’s counsel attributed quotations to cases that did not contain them; opposing counsel identified hallucinated quotations and the court ordered counsel to file a declaration explaining the fabricated quotations. — outcome: warning; actor: lawyer
Canonical record: Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

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

...urces that do not stand for 7 the cited proposition. Dkt. No. 389 at 11 & n.3. Guy’s counsel did not explain these non-existent 8 misquotations in his reply brief filed with the Court. See Dkt. No. 392. When questioned by the 9 Court about these hallucinated quotations at the hearing, Guy’s counsel was unaware of them and 10 had no explanation for the errors. 11 12 CONCLUSION United States District Court 13 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES the motion 14 to quash and for a protective o...

Authorities cited in the passage: Henson v. Turn · See United States v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 83 F · Ariz. Yage Assembly v. Barr,No. CV-20-02373-PHX-ROS, 2024 WL 1011677, *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2024) · Ariz. Yage Assembly v. Garland, No

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Read from the copy held by Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0) of the court-authored document Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub