Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software
D. Colorado · May 6, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Colorado
- Record ID
- harris-v-take-two-interactive-software-2025-05-06
- Observed outcome
- The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and issued a warning regarding the use of fictitious legal authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant regarding the inclusion of fabricated case law and fictitious quotations in court filings. The Court clarified that such conduct may trigger sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, noting that pro se litigants are subject to these requirements just as attorneys are.
The Court reasoned that the use of fictitious quotes or cases in filings violates the obligations imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which applies equally to pro se litigants and attorneys.
Pro-se Rule 11 warnings are multiplying; treat them as early-warning indicators for your pro-se opposing parties.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Contract
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (implied)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of a prior order denying a motion for clarification and an emergency hearing.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The defendant noted that courts have cautioned against the use of generative AI for drafting and research.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.