Wayne K. Smith, Sr. v. Polk County, et al.

What the court wrote

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

Artificial Intelligence The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s memorandum in support of the instant motion contains two fabricated quotations, along with multiple quoted statements lacking citation to any authority, and that such deficiencies suggest that the memorandum was drafted using artificial The Plaintiff complains that the Defendants tookthe “position” throughout discovery “that neither the vehicular pursuit nor policies are at issue in this case.” [Doc. 63 at 4]. The Court notes, however, that neither the vehicular pursuit nor the county’s policies are, in fact, at issue in this case. The Plaintiff’s counsel has also failed to show proper conferral or attempt to confer regarding one motion to compel and two motions for sanctions that are currently pending in this matter. LCvR 7.1(b); see generally [Docs. 46, 61, 68]. intelligence and without adequate human verification. [Doc. 60 at 2, 4 n.1, 9 n.3, 14 n.4]. The Defendants further note that the Plaintiff did not file the required certification regarding use of artificial intelligence with the memorandum, in violation of the Court’s Standing Order Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence, No. 3:24-mc-00104-MR (W.D.N.C.