O. Gene Bicknell v. Richard M. Silanskas Jr., et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent case to support narrowing subpoenas; Court could locate no such case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Provided a citation purportedly from D. Neb. that does not exist (mis-cited/fictional). || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an apparently fictitious Central District of California case rejecting requests for entire email accounts; Court could not locate it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Authority exists but was cited as supporting rejection of expansive subpoenas involving email; Court found the case actually granted a motion to compel and does not support the claimed proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a Northern District of Oklahoma decision that the Court could not locate; the referenced material instead pointed to unrelated Washington state health regulations. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited an existing S.D.N.Y. case for the proposition that a court may hear a motion to quash outside the district of compliance; Court found the case addresses amendment of a complaint, not venue for motions to quash. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted a passage attributed to the case that does not appear in the opinion; quotation was used to argue citation errors are not sanctionable but the case does not contain that language. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited an S.D.N.Y. decision that exists and involves subpoenas but does not support the specific proposition that this court may resolve a subpoena objection outside the district of compliance. || Fabricated: Case Law | Provided a citation that referred to an FDA safety report rather than a District of South Carolina case; Court could locate no such D.S.C. decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a specific quotation about sanctions to the Supreme Court case, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in that opinion.

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Oklahoma, with the listed outcome: Warning.