Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc.
W.D. Washington · Feb 4, 2026
WA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotestorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Plaintiff's expert reports (Kababick and Shippee) cite multiple articles that do not exist or are misattributed (court reviewed a table of ~10 such faulty citations and found errors). Outcome: Order to Show Cause. Tools disclosed later (see here).
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Plaintiff's expert reports (Kababick and Shippee) cite multiple articles that do not exist or are misattributed (court reviewed a table of ~10 such faulty citations and found errors). || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted text from RCW 7.72.010(2) that does not exist and altered statutory language (Dkt. 173-1 ¶ 59); court found the quoted provision nonexistent. || False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff cites a purported deposition quote from James Kababick about "post-production degradation of stimulant compounds" that does not appear in the cited transcript; court was unable to find the quote. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to United States v. Hankey to support an evidentiary proposition, but the quoted phrase does not appear in Hankey. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff included two quoted passages attributed to Fair v. King Cnty. that do not appear in the decision the brief cites; court found the quoted language absent. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language not present in In re Washington Mut. (694 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (W.D. Wash. 2009)) and in a 2011 order (2011 WL 1158387); court found the cited phrases absent and that original use was for a different proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent state-court decision, "Berg v. Chevrolet Motor Div., 84 Wn.2d 102, 108, 524 P.2d 226 (1974)"; court identified this citation as nonexistent and noted the correct authority was Baughn v. Honda Motor Co. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to HSS Enters. v. AMCO Ins. (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31659) that does not appear in that order (the phrase "harsh sanction" was not found).
- Why it matters now
- Expert reports are counsel's responsibility; audit every cited article and quoted deposition line before submission.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Plaintiff's expert reports (Kababick and Shippee) cite multiple articles that do not exist or are misattributed (court reviewed a table of ~10 such faulty citations and found errors). Outcome: Order to Show Cause. Tools disclosed later (see here).
Operational lesson
Expert reports are counsel's responsibility; audit every cited article and quoted deposition line before submission.
Record details
WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Washington
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 4, 2026
CH
AI toolChatGPT, Claude
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to Show Cause
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT, Claude is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to Show Cause
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Plaintiff's expert reports (Kababick and Shippee) cite multiple articles that do not exist or are misattributed (court reviewed a table of ~10 such faulty citations and found errors).
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted text from RCW 7.72.010(2) that does not exist and altered statutory language (Dkt. 173-1 ¶ 59); court found the quoted provision nonexistent.
- False Quotes: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff cites a purported deposition quote from James Kababick about "post-production degradation of stimulant compounds" that does not appear in the cited transcript; court was unable to find the quote.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to United States v. Hankey to support an evidentiary proposition, but the quoted phrase does not appear in Hankey.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff included two quoted passages attributed to Fair v. King Cnty. that do not appear in the decision the brief cites; court found the quoted language absent.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language not present in In re Washington Mut. (694 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (W.D. Wash. 2009)) and in a 2011 order (2011 WL 1158387); court found the cited phrases absent and that original use was for a different proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent state-court decision, "Berg v. Chevrolet Motor Div., 84 Wn.2d 102, 108, 524 P.2d 226 (1974)"; court identified this citation as nonexistent and noted the correct authority was Baughn v. Honda Motor Co.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to HSS Enters. v. AMCO Ins. (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31659) that does not appear in that order (the phrase "harsh sanction" was not found).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Plaintiff's expert reports (Kababick and Shippee) cite multiple articles that do not exist or are misattributed (court reviewed a table of ~10 such faulty citations and found errors). Outcome: Order to Show Cause. Tools disclosed later (see here).
- Why does Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- Expert reports are counsel's responsibility; audit every cited article and quoted deposition line before submission.
- What does the public record establish about Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc.?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.