Washington · federal district court · 2025

Nelson v. Washington Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals

District Court, W.D. Washington, 26 June 2025. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · W.D. Wash.

  1. Court. District Court, W.D. WashingtonCOURT
  2. Level. federal district courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 26 June 2025DATED
  4. Docket. No. 3:25-cv-05551DOCKET
  5. Judge. David G. EstudilloJUDGE
  6. Documents. one document, 2 passages quoted belowON FILE
  7. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.

Docket entry 17, 26 June 2025 · source · PDF · 3 pages

Docket text. ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AFFIRM USE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMS (DKT. NO. 11 ). Plaintiff is responsible for verifying that all information and all citations he submits are accurate and real pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pro cedure 11. If Plaintiff submits inaccurate or "hallucinated" citations, Plaintiff will be subject to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). At present, the Court finds no basis to prohibit Plaintiff from utilizin g any computer program that may assist him in filing documents with the Court. The Court also offers no opinion at this time whether an AI program, such as Athena AI, is an "auxiliary aid" for purposes of Title II of the American with Disa bilities Act. Lastly, this Order applies only to this litigation presently before the undersigned. This Order has no effect on any other litigation before any other judge, court, or tribunal. Other judges, courts, or tribunals may have different rules or procedures applicable to the use of an AI software program. Signed by U.S. District Judge David G Estudillo.(MW) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

NO. 11) - Plaintiff is also admonished not to rely on the AI program’s legal analysis as AI programs are known to “hallucinate” by identifying citations that do not exist. In fact, Plaintiff has already submitted at least one brief containing a citation that does not exist.

2 n.2.) To reiterate, Plaintiff is responsible for verifying that all information and all citations he submits are accurate and real pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. If Plaintiff submits inaccurate or “hallucinated” citations, Plaintiff will be subject to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). In short, the Court at present finds no basis to prohibit Plaintiff from utilizing any computer program that may assist him in filing documents with the Court.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from District Court, W.D. Washington, from Washington, or from 2025. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on my files