[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]

Faced with an honest error in submitting a motion with inaccurate citations, the court did not impose sanctions but held that it would not consider the replacement authorities.

A motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Defendant Cutera contained hallucinated citations. “In reviewing that motion, the Court was unable to locate certain cited cases. The apparent inaccuracies raised concerns that the motion contained fabricated or unreliable legal authorities, potentially resulting from the use of generative artificial intelligence.” 

The court issued an order to show cause that required Cutera’s counsel to file a declaration with an explanation. Farhat v. Cutera, Inc., 2026 WL 3257572 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2026).

Counsel filed a timely and responsive declaration and the court wrote: “[The attorney] acknowledges using Legora, a generative AI drafting tool, to prepare the initial draft…. She states that she then reviewed the cited authorities in Westlaw, identified citation errors, and transmitted a corrected draft to her assistant before the motion was filed…. According to [the attorney], an earlier, uncorrected version was inadvertently converted to PDF and filed, and she failed to catch the discrepancy through review of the final PDF…. Her declaration identifies the inaccurate citations, provides corrections, and attaches a redline comparing the filed motion with the corrected draft.” Id. (emphasis added).

The court wrote:

Having reviewed counsel’s response and accompanying exhibits, the Court DISCHARGES the October 22, 2026 order to show cause. In light of counsel’s explanation, acknowledgment of the errors, and submission of corrections, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time. However, the Court admonishes counsel that they remain responsible for the accuracy of documents filed with the Court. Counsel must review the final document before filing and verify that its authorities exist and support the propositions asserted. These responsibilities remain with counsel regardless of the use of AI or delegation to staff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Counsel is warned that further submissions containing fabricated authorities, materially inaccurate citations or quotations, or misrepresentations of legal authority may result in sanctions, as authorized by applicable law, after notice and an opportunity to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

Id. at *1 (emphasis added).

However, the mistake was penalized. The court disregarded the inaccurate citations “and will not consider the replacement authorities offered in counsel’s declaration.” Id.

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.