Courts on AI / Court rules adopted by opinion or order

Essandoh v. Capital One Bank NA

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · Federal district courts · TX · 2026-04-16 · 2026 WL 1040383 · No. No. 4:25-CV-00746-ALM-BD · order

Court rules adopted by opinion or order Self-represented litigants using AI

The Eastern District of Texas on 2026-04-16 admonished the self-represented plaintiff about inaccuracies in a joint discovery report caused by generative-AI reliance. The order required future disclosures identifying any generative-AI use and certifications that the filer reviewed AI work product for accuracy and relevance.

Disposition: After admonishing Essandoh at a discovery hearing, the court ordered disclosure and certification requirements for any future filing prepared with AI and described possible sanctions for violations.
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.

LAUD ESSANDOH v. United States District Court, E. D. Texas, Sherman Division. LAUD ESSANDOH v. CAPITAL ONE BANK NA NO. ORDER ON DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge *1 Today, the court held a discovery hearing based on the parties' joint report, Dkt. 25, following the court's face-to-face order, Dkt. 24. Minute Entry for Apr. 16, 2026. At the hearing, the court questioned plaintiff Laud Essandohregardinginaccuraciesinhispartofthejointreport. Id. Essandoh admitted that the inaccuracies resulted from reliance on generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). Id. The court admonished him about the risks of that misplaced relianceandthesanctionsthatcanresultfromit. Id.

Authorities cited in the passage: Sherman Division. LAUD ESSANDOH v. CAPITAL ONE BANK NA NO. ORDER ON DISCLOSURE AND CERTIFICATION REQU

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub