Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al.

What the court wrote

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

before the successor judge with accurate citations. The imposition of sanctions for misuse of generative Al is relatively new; for instance, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., one of the first significant federal cases on the topic, was not published until June 22, 2023. 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S. D. N. Y. 2023). reflects the proliferation of generative Al, its infiltration into legal writing, and its repeated misuse by attorneys. The Mata court aptly explains the harm perpetrated by Scott and Hewitt, and why sanctions are appropriate: Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: 2096 Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions. The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court's time is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its authenticity. 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448-49 (footnote omitted). The court in Wac/swoth v. Walmart, in imposing monetary sanctions against the attorneys who submitted Al-hallucinated caselaw, noted that, by February 24, 2025, the date of publication, "[i]t is .. . well-known in the legal community that Al resources generate fake cases. " 348 F. R. D. 489, 497 (D. Wyo. 2025). As evidenced by Wadsworth being cited in 61 cases since publication, by the time Collier and Scott filed the Motion to Dismiss in August 2025, every licensed attorney knew or should have reasonably known that relying on generative Al for research would likely result in a filing containing Al hallucinations. The volume of subsequent cases citing Mata and Wadsworth reinforce this Court's conclusion: that the problem of attorneys submitting hallucinated citations is rapidly worsening, and is one of the biggest threats currently facing federal civil litigation. Importantly, the January 2, 2026, Decision made clear that the Court's expectation of accurate citations has no exception for generative Al. Courts have imposed monetary sanctions for attorneys filing Al- hallucinated citations ranging between $1, 000 and $5, 000. Wadsworth, 348 F. R. D. 8 Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: 2097 at 497 (collecting cases), 498. In imposing $3, 000 and $1, 000 fines on the drafting

Authorities cited in the passage: State v. Carter, 72 Ohio App. 3d 553 (2d Dist. 1991) · s review found no such opinion supporting that proposition (case appears non-existent/mislinked). || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel relied on · in briefing; the Court · Dart Indus. Co. v. Hurd, 66 Ohio St. 2d 280 (1981) · State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 2015-Ohio-760 · State v. Milam, 2022-Ohio-3965 (10th Dist.) · Counsel cited United States v. Pendergraft · Counsel cited 'State v. Carter · Counsel cited 'Dart Indus. Co. v. Hurd · Counsel cited Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co · Inc. v. Impact Office Prods · Counsel cited 'State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist