Docket entry 40, 7 August 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re 39 Declaration. Filings submitted by Jayne D. Hack must be accompanied by a declaration identifying each person or GenAI tool that assisted in preparing the filing, unless the filing is submitted by counsel on her behalf. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 8/7/26 (alt)
LEGAL STANDARD The Tenth Circuit has held that while “[t]here is nothing inherently problematic with the use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law[;] its careless use can waste both judicial resources and the opposing party’s time and money, and it can damage the credibility of the legal system.” 6 “GenAI functions as a digital ghostwriter by producing text, outlines, and complete drafts from prompts, but carries the well-known risk of “AI hallucinations,” which “occurs when an AI database generates fake sources of information,” such as fabricated cases and misattributions.
20 Declaration at ¶ 2. Case 4:25-cv-00096-DN-PK Document 40 Filed 08/07/26 PageID.209 Page 4 of 6 5 hallucinations.”21 Although the use of GenAI is not inherently improper, it presents a risk that filings may contain unsupported or inaccurate legal authority if not carefully verified. In her reply memorandum, supporting her motion to dismiss for insufficient service,22 Ms.
In her reply memorandum, supporting her motion to dismiss for insufficient service,22 Ms. Stephens includes a mischaracterized legal assertion relying on a case that was improperly cited.23 Briefing has not yet crossed the threshold to warrant sanctions, but the risks of AI hallucinations in future filings concern the court. Accordingly, this order serves as a caution that sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be imposed if the use of GenAI results in violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under Rule 11 this includes pleadings, motions, or papers that are presented for an improper purpose, that contain legal contentions not warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law, or that include factual contentions or denials that lack evidentiary support. 24 21 Moore, 2025 WL 3471341, at *2 (citing What are AI Hallucinations?, Google Cloud, https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-are-ai-hallucinations [https://perma.cc/EJS8-CFMX])] (last visited August 6, 2026),); see also When AI Hallucinates in Court: A Cautionary Tale for Legal Professionals, Univ. of N.H. Franklin Pierce Sch. of Law Libr.