Baker v. Rastelli Foods LLC

What the court wrote

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

200, 209 (3d Cir. 2021). But plaintiffs will not be permitted to file an amended complaint without also meeting additional requirements. Rastelli Defendants have requested that the Court impose a filing injunction on plaintiffs or, in the alternative, prohibit plaintiffs from using artificial intelligence to prepare filings or require that plaintiffs include affidavits with their filings indicating whether they have used artificial intelligence or other assistance. (Rastelli Defs.’ Mot. Br. pp. 35–37.) Plaintiffs contend that Rastelli Defendants’ request is a distraction intended to avoid accountability by constraining plaintiffs’ efforts to enforce their rights. (Pls.’ Opp’n Br. – Rastelli p. 10.) Somewhat surprisingly, Rastelli Defendants do not appear to have reviewed the cases cited in the complaint. The Court has. Multiple cases cited by plaintiffs are so inaccurately cited that the Court is unable to locate them, assuming they exist at all. This represents a separate—and potentially more egregious—issue than Rastelli Defendants’ assertion that the sources cited by plaintiffs in their opposition do not support their stated propositions (Rastelli Defs.’ Reply Br. pp. 17–19), which itself warrants Court action. Plaintiffs’ use of a quotation that does not appear in the cited