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. Case Nos. 25-cv-03698-SI · order

Fabricated or misquoted citationsClaude

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 court ordered the plaintiff to explain why sanctions should not issue for misquoting a discovery case.
Recorded conduct: Counsel filed a motion using quotations that did not appear in the cited source and nonexistent or hallucinated authorities. — outcome: other; 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.

United States District Court Northern District of California Guy cites no authority, apart from a misquoted case regarding the limits of discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure, for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment has any bearing on relevant discovery in a civil lawsuit. See Mot. at 8 (misquoting Henson v. Turn, Inc., No. 15-cv- 01497-JSW (LB), 2018 WL 5281629, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2018) as saying compelled production of mobile devices for forensic imaging “is highly intrusive”). The Court finds his argument to be frivolous. See United States v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 83 F.R.D. 97, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (“It strains common sense and constitutional analysis to conclude that the fourth amendment was meant to protect against unreasonablediscovery demands madebyaprivatelitigant in the course of civil litigation.”); Ariz. Yage Assembly v. Barr,No. CV-20-02373-PHX-ROS, 2024 WL 1011677, *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2024), appeal dismissed sub nom. Ariz. Yage Assembly v. Garland, No.

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 mirror; official copy pendingprovisional
Found via: charlotin-cc0
Notes: Read from the Charlotin CC0 public mirror of the court-authored document; official copy is pending.

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 Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub