Docket entry 190, 21 March 2025 · source · PDF · 20 pages
Docket text. Motion In Compliance: Memorandum Showing Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Levied as to 187 Order, filed by Jose R. Olmo-Rodriguez on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Responses due by 4/4/2025. NOTE: Pursuant to FRCP 6(a) an additional three days does not apply to service done electronically. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit response to motion for leave to file reply, # 2 Exhibit response to motion for leave to file reply re confidentiality, # 3 Exhibit response to motion for leave to reply re protective order)(Related document(s) 187 ) (Olmo-Rodriguez, Jose) Modified docket text on 3/24/2025 (rim). (Entered: 03/21/2025)
ARGUMENT A. Citation Errors Were Inadvertent and Immaterial, Not Violations of Competence or Candor The Court identified three categories of citation issues: (1) incorrect citations, (2) misquoted content, and (3) references to nonexistent cases. Plaintiffs’ review, consistent with 4 Exhibits A -C, reveals these as minor clerical errors amidst a majority of accurate, supportive citations.
The intended authorities exist, are relevant, and align with Plaintiffs’ positions. No “nonexistent” cases were fabricated; errors reflect haste, not deceit. Under In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 859 F.2d at 1025, sanctions require “intentional deceit,” not “inadvertent discrepancies,” absent here.
2023). In Mata, counsel submitted wholly fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT, a stark contrast to this case. Here, Plaintiffs’ filings cite over 30 distinct cases across Docket Nos.
The grand majority—e.g., Kevlik, Fiandaca, Blue Shield—are accurately cited, directly quoted or faithfully paraphrased, and squarely support Plaintiffs’ arguments against disqualification, discovery limits, and confidentiality overreach. This predominance of valid citations negates any plausible inference of AI misuse; generative AI typically produces systemic fabrications, not isolated typos amidst a sea of precision. Counsel prepared these filings using traditional methods —legal databases like vLex (Ex.
175) or Gannett likely stem from clerical missteps (e.g., intending Healy v. Spencer, 747 F.3d 1), not fabrication, and are overshadowed by authoritative citations like 18 McCready, 457 U.S. at 478-79, in the same filing. These mistakes arose under deadline pressure, not deceit, as counsel balanced this case with trial preparation in Orengo Investments.
3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), where counsel submitted a fraudulent affidavit and seven wholly fictitious cases—unlike here, where errors are isolated amidst valid precedent. The First Circuit requires “intentional deceit” for Rule 3.3 violations ( In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 859 F.2d at 1025), a threshold unmet here, making sanctions inappropriate.