Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.
S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court ordered that any future filings by the pro se plaintiffs involving the use of artificial intelligence must include a signed certification. This certification must state that the litigant personally reviewed the filing for accuracy and describe the specific steps taken to verify all legal authorities and factual assertions generated by the AI tool.
- Why the court cared
- The court noted that the plaintiffs' objections relied on an AI tool and contained obvious errors, such as citing non-existent case law and misrepresenting the magistrate judge's findings. The court emphasized that all litigants are responsible for verifying AI output and imposed a certification requirement to ensure future compliance with accuracy standards.
- Why it matters now
- This case highlights the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools without verification, leading to the submission of fabricated citations and misrepresented judicial findings. It underscores the judiciary's proactive use of certification requirements to enforce accountability for AI-generated filings.
Why this matter is tracked
In a tort action, pro se plaintiffs submitted objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation that contained significant errors, including references to findings the magistrate judge never made and fabricated case law citations. The court identified that the plaintiffs relied on an artificial intelligence tool to generate these filings. Consequently, the court issued a stern reminder regarding the duty of all litigants to verify the accuracy of AI-generated output. To prevent future occurrences, the court mandated that any subsequent filings involving AI assistance must include a signed certification confirming the litigant personally reviewed the filing for accuracy and detailing the specific verification steps taken. Failure to comply with this certification requirement may result in the court striking the non-compliant filing.
This case highlights the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools without verification, leading to the submission of fabricated citations and misrepresented judicial findings. It underscores the judiciary's proactive use of certification requirements to enforce accountability for AI-generated filings.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the plaintiffs relied on an artificial intelligence tool.
The court issued an Order Adopting a Report and Recommendation following the plaintiffs' filing of objections to the magistrate judge's proposed dismissal of certain claims.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | References to findings that the judge in charge did not make.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Objections purportedly quoted language attributed to Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 122 (N.Y. 1993) that the court found was not an accurate quotation from that opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Objections purportedly quoted Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002) — the court found the cited quotation/case did not exist in the form presented.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Objections purportedly quoted language attributed to Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) that the court determined was not an accurate quotation from that opinion.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.?
- The court ordered that any future filings by the pro se plaintiffs involving the use of artificial intelligence must include a signed certification. This certification must state that the litigant personally reviewed the filing for accuracy and describe the specific steps taken to verify all legal authorities and factual assertions generated by the AI tool.
- Why does Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This case highlights the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools without verification, leading to the submission of fabricated citations and misrepresented judicial findings. It underscores the judiciary's proactive use of certification requirements to enforce accountability for AI-generated filings.
- What does the public record establish about Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al. 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.