Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0J1X2SYGenerated August 21, 2026Evidence checked Aug 21, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (2)

W.D. Washington · Aug 18, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
W.D. Washington
Record ID
joann-ledoux-v-outliers-inc-2-2026-08-18
Observed outcome
Expert Brief excluded/struck
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff's counsel (Jocelyn Stewart) used Claude or ChatGPT to generate citation data provided as an appendix/submission to the court and experts, resulting in numerous false citations in filings and expert exhibits. Outcome: Expert Brief excluded/struck.

Why the decision-maker cared

The structured public record identifies fake citations and tort and records Expert Brief excluded/struck. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.

Why it matters now

This matter connects fake citations and tort with Expert Brief excluded/struck in W.D. Washington. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Tort
  • Trial
  • Struck Filing
AI attribution
Reported
Recorded tool
Claude and ChatGPT
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Expert Brief excluded/struck
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

Claude and ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

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.

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.