SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson on Monday ordered plaintiff's counsel to explain how three missing case citations ended up in an opposition brief, warning that failure to verify artificial intelligence output violates Rule 11 duties.
Hixson issued the order in Gregoire v. Board of Trustees of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District after reviewing an April 24 opposition to a pending motion for sanctions. The court said it was unable to locate three of the four cases cited in the filing and suspected generative AI hallucinations.
"Counsel of record is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of all submissions to the Court, including any content drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools," Hixson wrote.
The magistrate judge cited Oneto v. Watson, a recent Northern District of California decision that awarded sanctions against counsel for citing fictitious cases. Hixson noted that while the court does not prohibit AI in legal advocacy, parties have a duty to independently verify the accuracy of AI-generated content.
Jessica R. Barsotti, counsel for plaintiff Karl Gregoire, must file a declaration by May 4 identifying each statement or quotation that cites a legal authority. The declaration must explain the origin of each citation, disclose whether generative AI tools were used and how, and detail the steps taken to verify accuracy.
Hixson warned that failure to comply or a finding of inadequate verification could result in sanctions, including striking the filing, referral to authorities, and monetary penalties.
The court declined to name the missing cases in the order, noting that doing so could inadvertently amplify any error that the cases exist.