Page v. Apperson Crump, PLC

What the court wrote

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

DENIED. Lastly, Appellee’s response raises its discovery that Page relied on three nonexistent, erroneous or misrepresentative case citations in his motion for summary reversal. (D.E. 20 at PageID 423 (citing D.E. 11 at PageID 345-46).) The Court’s research confirms Appellee’s report about these citations. In his affidavit, Page addresses these “citation errors,” after admitting that he used “an artificial intelligence tool” to draft “a substantial portion of the legal documents” filed in this appeal. (D.E. 26 at PageID 517.) He states, “I disclose the AI assistance not to excuse the citation errors but to be transparent with this Court about how they occurred and to ensure the record reflects the truth. Every factual assertion in every document I have filed is true to the best PageID 536 of my knowledge.” (Id.) The Court warns Appellant that it may impose sanctions if he continues to submit nonexistent or misrepresentative citations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) (“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper . . . an attorney or unrepresented party certifies . . . the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing

Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)