Brankle v. Schmell

What the court wrote

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

Brankle’s motion is totally without merit. First, Commercial Court Rules are inapplicable to this case[,] and Brankle should not cite to them again. Brankle’s repeated citations to rules that do not exist or fictitious cases leads the Court to opine that Brankle is using ChatGPT or other form of artificial intelligence to prepare his numerous motions, responses, and notices to the Court which is a violation of Ind. Trial Rule 11(A). ... First, Brankle claims the motion to compel was substantially justified. A party is “substantially justified” in filing a motion to compel “if reasonable persons could conclude that a genuine issue existed as to whether a person was bound to comply with the requested discovery.” Yount v. Carpenter Co. Inc., 219 N.E.3d 127, 132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Huber v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff, 940 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). A motion riddled with citations to hallucinated authorities is hardly “substantially justified.” ... Brankle does not address the trial court’s findings that he cited to inapplicable Commercial Court Rules and hallucinated authorities.

Authorities cited in the passage: Ind. Trial Rule 11(A) · Ind. Trial Rule 37(A)(4) · Yount v. Carpenter Co. Inc., 219 N.E.3d 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) · Huber v. Montgomery County Sheriff, 940 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) · Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a)