Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Sims v. Souily-Lefave (1)
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · Federal district courts · NV · · 2026 WL 948233 · No. 2:24-cv-00831-CDS-EJY that · other
On 2026-04-07, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied the discovery motions and warned the plaintiff that unchecked AI-generated or unsupported citations could expose her to Rule 11 sanctions. A self-represented party submitted a motion with The motion cited fabricated or mischaracterized discovery cases, including Cruz and DuPont authorities, for propositions the cases did not support.
- Disposition
- The court denied the discovery motions and warned the plaintiff that unchecked AI-generated or unsupported citations could expose her to Rule 11 sanctions.
- Recorded conduct
- The motion cited fabricated or mischaracterized discovery cases, including Cruz and DuPont authorities, for propositions the cases did not support. — outcome: warning; actor: litigant in person
- 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.
is not an Motion; however, the Court finds such efforts would be futile attorney, offers arguments not germane to the issue of her and, thus, this failure is not a basis to deny Plaintiff's Motion. refusal to proceed with answering questions at her deposition, It is true that Defendants had previously filed a Motion to and contends defense counsel improperly made threats of Compel; however, Defendants offer no law supporting their sanctions (id. at 8-9), which the Court warned Plaintiff could contention that Plaintiff cannot file a motion for protective be sought if her deposition did not proceed. ECF No. 172 at order in response to a motion to compel. Plaintiff's Reply 13-14. (ECF No. 184) is off point (discussing defense counsel's pro hac vice filing, contending her Motion for Protective Plaintiff cites case law that must be AI generated. See EFC Order was “administrative,” and discussing the importance of No. 175 at 10 and compare Plaintiff's citations to (1) Cruz protective orders). ECF No. 184 at 3, 4, 6-8. To the extent v. Fox, 202 F.R.D. 419, 423 (N.D. Ill 2001) (allegedly Plaintiff contends she adequately met and conferred
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face