Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Juliet Doherty et al.
S.D. New York · Oct 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- S.D. New York
- Record ID
- mitchell-taylor-button-dusty-button-v-juliet-doherty-et-al-2025-10-18
- Observed outcome
- The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and imposed a mandatory certification requirement for any future AI-assisted filings by the plaintiffs.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- artificial intelligence tool
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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
The court noted the plaintiffs relied on an artificial intelligence tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.