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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company
S.D. Mississippi · Sep 17, 2025
MS / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company, the Southern District of Mississippi denied seven late and procedurally deficient discovery motions filed by a self-represented plaintiff. The September 17, 2025 order separately examined authorities offered in the motions. It found that Hazy v. Ford Motor Co. did not exist; that the purported Patterson v. Allstate Westlaw citation actually belonged to an unrelated Fair Labor Standards Act case; that a claimed Architex citation was fictional; and that a cited Canal decision was inaccurately given and unrelated to claims-manual discovery.…
- Why the court cared
- The motions were denied because they were untimely, repetitive, and did not satisfy pre-filing requirements. The citation problems informed the court’s good-faith concern and warning, but were not the sole procedural basis for denial.
- Why it matters now
- The order verifies individual citation failures while carefully preserving uncertainty about whether AI generated them.
Why this matter is tracked
In Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company, the Southern District of Mississippi denied seven late and procedurally deficient discovery motions filed by a self-represented plaintiff. The September 17, 2025 order separately examined authorities offered in the motions. It found that Hazy v. Ford Motor Co. did not exist; that the purported Patterson v. Allstate Westlaw citation actually belonged to an unrelated Fair Labor Standards Act case; that a claimed Architex citation was fictional; and that a cited Canal decision was inaccurately given and unrelated to claims-manual discovery. The court also found the Levens, Johnson, and Dunn authorities did not support the claimed proposition. It expressed concern that the authorities may have been produced by generative AI, but expressly said Hill still had Rule 11 obligations even if she had not used AI. The resulting action was a warning and denial of the motions, not a monetary sanction in this order.
Operational lesson
The order verifies individual citation failures while carefully preserving uncertainty about whether AI generated them.
Record details
MississippiSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. Mississippi
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateSep 17, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Hazy v. Ford Motor Co., 2021 WL 2345678'—the court found this case does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Canal Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 625 So. 2d 297 (Miss. 1993)'—court found the citation incorrect; a Canal Ins. Co. opinion exists but is 625 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2010) and is not about claims-manual discovery.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Levens v. Campbell; Johnson v. Preferred Risk Auto. Ins. Co.; Dunn v. State Farm—these authorities exist but were cited as establishing that claims manuals are always discoverable; the court found they do not stand for that proposition (misstated precedent).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Patterson v. Allstate, 2019 WL 1239855 (S.D. Miss. 2019)'—court/defendant could not locate the case and the Westlaw cite corresponds to an unrelated FLSA case (Holt).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Architex Ass'n v. Scottsdale Ins., 2022 WL 1234567'—the citation is fictional; the actual case is Architex Ass'n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 27 So. 3d 1148 (Miss. 2010), which does not address claims-manual discovery as plaintiff claimed.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company?
- In Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company, the Southern District of Mississippi denied seven late and procedurally deficient discovery motions filed by a self-represented plaintiff. The September 17, 2025 order separately examined authorities offered in the motions. It found that Hazy v. Ford Motor Co. did not exist; that the purported Patterson v. Allstate Westlaw citation actually belonged to an unrelated Fair Labor Standards Act case; that a claimed Architex citation was fictional; and that a cited Canal decision was inaccurately given and unrelated to claims-manual discovery.…
- Why does Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company matter for legal AI risk?
- The order verifies individual citation failures while carefully preserving uncertainty about whether AI generated them.
- What does the public record establish about Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company?
- The court said it was concerned the cited authority was generative-AI output, but expressly recognized that Hill could have violated Rule 11 even without AI assistance.
- Which source supports this Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company 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.