IN RE: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation
D. Arizona · Aug 12, 2026
Short answer. Status: Challenge to the expert's report as AI-generated rejected (raised first in reply; mere suspicion is not enough); motion to exclude granted in part on other grounds (the expert may not opine on two causation points); no sanction; amount: no amount stated. D. Arizona, decision date on record August 12, 2026. As of November 14, 2026. Court source · Methodology
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Court
- D. Arizona
- Record ID
- in-re-bard-implanted-port-catheter-products-liability-litigation-2026-08-12
- Observed outcome
- Challenge to the expert's report as AI-generated rejected (raised first in reply; mere suspicion is not enough); motion to exclude granted in part on other grounds (the expert may not opine on two causation points); no sanction
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants alleged numerous hallucinated (fabricated) citations appeared in El‑Ghannam's case‑specific report in this MDL; the court noted Bard had not identified any fully hallucinated citations in El‑Ghannam's General Report and found the AI challenge raised in reply untimely and insufficient to exclude the expert. Outcome: Challenge to the expert's report as AI-generated rejected (raised first in reply; mere suspicion is not enough); motion to exclude granted in part on other grounds (the expert may not opine on two causation points); no sanction. Defendants raised in reply that Dr. El‑Ghannam used ChatGPT and that his case‑specific report contained hallucinated (fabricated) citations, citing a different MDL filing where hallucinated sources were confirmed. The Court found the AI argument untimely, noted Bard had not identified any fully hallucinated citations in the General Report, and observed El‑Ghannam admitted limited ChatGPT use but testified he wrote and verified the report. The Court refused to exclude opinions on that basis and imposed no sanction.
The structured public record identifies fake citations and tort and records Challenge to the expert's report as AI-generated rejected (raised first in reply; mere suspicion is not enough); motion to exclude granted in part on other grounds (the expert may not opine on two causation points); no sanction. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects fake citations and tort with Challenge to the expert's report as AI-generated rejected (raised first in reply; mere suspicion is not enough); motion to exclude granted in part on other grounds (the expert may not opine on two causation points); no sanction in D. Arizona. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Challenge to the expert's report as AI-generated rejected (raised first in reply; mere suspicion is not enough); motion to exclude granted in part on other grounds (the expert may not opine on two causation points); no sanction
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
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The record concerns a public allegation and does not establish an adjudicated finding. 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.
Allegation status: no adjudicated finding is represented by this brief.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Keep allegations separate from adjudicated findings in research, reporting, and client communications.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.