Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1V060QUGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Hodges v. McGough Enterprises LLC

S.D. New York · May 26, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
S.D. New York
Record ID
hodges-v-mcgough-enterprises-llc-2026-05-26
Observed outcome
The Court denied the motion for a protective order and issued a formal warning regarding the use of fabricated case law.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The Court issued a warning to a pro se litigant after identifying multiple non-existent case citations in a motion, which the Court suspected were generated by AI. The Court ordered the litigant to produce the cited authorities and cautioned that continued reliance on fabricated citations could lead to formal sanctions or dismissal.

Why the decision-maker cared

The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff's inability to provide verifiable citations for five specific cases raised a significant concern of AI-generated hallucinations, noting that pro se status does not excuse the submission of fake legal authority.

Why it matters now

This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of pro se filings for AI-generated hallucinations. It reinforces that courts apply the same verification standards to pro se litigants as to counsel, with potential for sanctions if fake citations persist.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Civil Rights
  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
AI (implied, unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
The matter arose during discovery in a civil rights action pending in the S.D. New York, specifically regarding the Plaintiff's motion for a protective order.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The Court identified the citations as potential AI hallucinations.

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
  3. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.