$5K Sanctions for “Egregious, Repeated, and Ongoing” AI Hallucinations in Self-Represented Litigant’s Filings

From last week’s decision by Judge Virginia Kendall (N.D. Ill.) in Obi v. Cook County:

The Court strikes Plaintiff’s motion [to alter or amend the judgment dismissing her complaint] for violating Local Rule 7.1 and sanctions her $5,000 for violating Rule 11.

Plaintiff’s motion is 10.5 pages single-spaced and her core argument runs six straight pages in a single paragraph. 10.5 single-spaced pages is 21 pages double-spaced. Plaintiff’s reply briefs are 23 pages single-spaced (46 pages double-spaced) and 13 pages single-spaced (26 pages double-spaced). Plaintiff never sought leave to file such voluminous papers. The lack of table of contents is also problematic because, as discussed below, many of Plaintiff’s citations are fictious. Plaintiff violated Local Rule 7.1. “Neither a motion nor brief in support … shall exceed 15 pages without prior approval of the court.” Any brief that exceeds 15 pages “must have a table of contents with the pages noted and a table of cases.” “Any brief … that does not comply with this rule shall be … subject to being stricken by the court.” The Court “strictly enforce[s]” this rule. The Court therefore strikes Plaintiff’s motion and replies.

Normally the Court, recognizing Plaintiff’s pro se status, would offer leeway and consider Plaintiff’s briefs despite violating Local Rule 7.1. Plaintiff’s egregious, repeated, and ongoing Rule 11 violations, however, foreclose any such possibility. Plaintiff generated each brief using AI. Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact. [Citing filing] (identifying 13 hallucinated cases, quotes, and statements of law)….

This is not the first time Plaintiff has done this. In a prior filing, Plaintiff’s brief contained at least 17 instances of fake cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact from AI hallucinations. The Court then gave Plaintiff grace—Plaintiff has exhausted that leniency. Plaintiff’s replies suffer from similar Rule 11 violations….

The severity of Plaintiff’s Rule 11 ongoing and repeated violations warrants sanctions. “Pro se status does not shelter plaintiffs from sanctions pursuant to Rule 11.” “When a self-represented party files a document in federal court, that party is certifying to the court that the legal contentions contained in it ‘are warranted by existing law.'” “‘Carelessness, good faith, or ignorance are not an excuse for submitting materials that do not comply with Rule 11.'” Plaintiff “must ensure that the case citations and representations she presents to the court are accurate and are supported by valid precedent; the fact that she is representing herself does not relieve her of that duty.”

“Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11.” Plaintiff did just that repeatedly. “This demonstrates that [Plaintiff] failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the supporting law or facts. This wastes both the parties’ and the Court’s time attempting to locate nonexistent cases and unpack made up factual assertions.” The Court sanctions Plaintiff $5,000 for filing false cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact to the Court in violation of Rule 11.