VIRGIL v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION SETH CAMERON VIRGIL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:25-cv-01641-MPB-MJD ) EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC, ) LEASINGDESK SCREENING, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Magistrate Judge Mark Dinsmore issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that attorney James Policchio be personally sanctioned $10,000.00 under Federal Rule 11 for "filing five briefs that contained citations to non-existent cases." (Docket No. 395 at ECF p.

302 at ECF pp. 3, 5–7), which appeared fabricated, and another four that appeared to misrepresent case holdings. The defendants also identified two additional nonexistent cases cited in two of Policchio's previous filings.

331). This filing also contained citations to nonexistent cases, (Docket No. 331 at ECF pp.

333). The Magistrate Judge ordered Policchio and his co-counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for repeated violations of Rule 11(b) through their submission of fabricated case citations. (Docket No.

3). Counsel were also directed to submit a list of every case cited throughout their filings in this action and certify whether each case was accurately cited, inaccurately cited, or nonexistent. (Id. at ECF pp.

3–4). In total, there were eleven nonexistent and four inaccurate citations identified throughout five separate filings, (Docket Nos. 115; 240; 289; 294; 331), the last of which was filed seven days after the defendants first raised their concerns with the Court.

Discussion Having reviewed the record and the R&R, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the standard for Rule 11 sanctions and did not commit clear error. Simply put, by repeatedly using inaccurate and nonexistent case citations in five filings, Policchio abandoned 4 his duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into his legal contentions while nevertheless certifying that he had. Failure to verify a case citation's accuracy, let alone the case's existence, is objectively unreasonable.

Yet, as the Magistrate Judge notes, (Id. at ECF p. 4 n.2), it is difficult to see how Policchio's explanation accounts for the presence of nonexistent or inaccurate citations—often "hallmarks of AI hallucinations"—in his filings. Perez-Castillo v.

302.] In that brief, Defendants identified six cases cited by Plaintiff's attorneys, James Policchio and Kyle Schumacher,1 in Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, [Dkt. 294], that appeared to be fabricated, as well as several citations to cases that exist but do not relate to the issues for which they are cited. See [Dkt.

302 at 5-6]. The reply brief further identified two additional cases cited by Plaintiff in two other filings that appeared to be fabricated. See [Dkt.

302 at 7]. On December 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Notice to the Court of Further Fabricated Case Law. [Dkt.

[Dkt. 333.] In that filing, Defendants identified two additional fabricated cases cited by Plaintiff's counsel, this time in Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Mission Rock Residential, LLC, and Abbotts Run Asset Management, LLC, [Dkt. 331], a document that was filed after Defendants had raised the issue of fabricated citations.

For each filing that contains citations, a list of those citations; and 4. For each citation, either a certification that Plaintiff's counsel have confirmed that it exists and is accurately cited or an indication that it does not exist or is not accurately cited. Counsel did so.

[Dkt. 345.] The Notice confirms that the following citations do not exist or are not accurately cited: • In Docket 115: Myers v. Passport Health, 2013 WL 5819270 (S.D.

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law . . . . 2 The Court notes that most of the cases cited below involve AI-generated hallucinated citations. Mr.

Policchio had saved into a case management program when working on prior cases. It is unclear to the Court how that process could have resulted in non-existent citations being created, but the distinction is irrelevant. The issue in this and the cited cases is not the use of AI to assist in legal work; it is the failure to review the validity and content of the cases cited in briefs filed with the Court.