Docket entry 45, 6 May 2026 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Docket text. ORDER SANCTIONING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL, JESSICA BARSOTTI. 1. Attorney Jessica Barsotti is personally sanctioned in the amount of $1,000. Within 21 days of the date of this order, Ms. Barsotti shall pay this sanction to the Clerk of Court. 2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this order, Ms. Barsotti shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff Karl Gregoire.3. Within 60 days of the date of this order, Ms. Barsotti shall file on the docket a declaration identify ing and certifying her participation in a Continuing Legal Education course of at least one hour regarding the ethical use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law.4. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this order on the State Bar of California.5. The order to show cause issued on April 27, 2026 (ECF No. 42 ) is hereby discharged. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 5/6/2026. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2026)
INTRODUCTION On April 27, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff Karl Gregoire’s counsel, Jessica R. Barsotti, to show cause why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue for her inclusion of nonexistent and erroneous case citations in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District motion for sanctions. ECF No.
40-1). After reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition, the Court was unable to locate three of the four cases cited therein.1 Concerned that these inaccuracies suggest hallucinations from the use of 1 The Court does not include the names of these cases here, as doing so could inadvertently amplify any error that these cases exist. United States District Court Northern District of California generative artificial intelligence tools, the Court issued a second show cause order, directing Ms.
DISCUSSION A. Citations to Fictitious Cases “‘To start with the obvious, an attorney who submits fake cases clearly has not read those nonexistent cases.’” Oneto v. Watson, 808 F.
Ms. Barsotti’s “submission of citations to nonexistent cases, on its own, constitutes a violation of FRCP 11(b).” Oneto, 808 F. Supp.
Ms. Barsotti’s erroneous citations make clear she submitted Plaintiff’s brief to the Court without conducting a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the legal authorities cited because she United States District Court Northern District of California otherwise would have recognized that the cases cited do not exist. Ms.
Further, Ms. Barsotti’s submission of fictitious cases to the Court “not only violated Rule 11, it degraded or impugned the integrity of the Court and it also violated California Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1(a)(2), 3.3(a)(1), and 3.3(a)(2).” Oneto, 808 F. Supp.
Cal. 2025) (noting that the submission of fictitious legal authority violates rules of professional conduct)). To be clear, the Court does not prohibit or oppose the use of artificial intelligence in legal advocacy, so long as counsel independently verifies the accuracy of AI-generated content as required under Rule 11.
By issuing an order to show cause, the Court provided Ms. Barsotti with notice and an opportunity to be heard on why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue for her use of nonexistent and erroneous citations in Plaintiff’s opposition brief. See ECF No.