Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC
M.D. Florida · May 14, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court identified widespread miscitations, fabricated quotes, and unsupported legal theories in the plaintiff's response. Finding these errors exceeded excusable negligence, the court signaled a potential violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and ordered the plaintiff's counsel to show cause regarding the potential use of AI in generating the submission.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the plaintiff's response contained errors beyond 'normal excusable mistakes,' specifically citing the inclusion of non-existent facts and legal theories, which raised concerns under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and suggested the impermissible use of AI.
- Why it matters now
- This case highlights the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of filings for AI-generated hallucinations. It serves as a warning that counsel is responsible for the accuracy of all citations and factual assertions, regardless of the research tools employed.
Why this matter is tracked
In Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. During its review of the plaintiff's response, the court identified numerous instances of incorrect case citations, fabricated quotations, and assertions of facts and legal theories unsupported by the record. The court noted that these errors exceeded the scope of excusable carelessness and suggested the potential use of generative artificial intelligence to produce the filing. Consequently, the court announced it would issue a separate order to show cause to the plaintiff's counsel to address these potential violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
This case highlights the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of filings for AI-generated hallucinations. It serves as a warning that counsel is responsible for the accuracy of all citations and factual assertions, regardless of the research tools employed.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court explicitly referenced the potential use of Artificial Intelligence programs.
The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and concurrently announced the issuance of an order to show cause regarding the plaintiff's counsel's conduct in the response filing.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court observed multiple mis-cites and incorrect quotations in Plaintiff's response, noting 'a mis-cite or incorrect quote here and there.' Court flagged these as unsupported or non-existent in the record.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Court found the response 'repeatedly cites to facts and legal theories that do not exist on this record,' i.e., assertions of record facts and legal positions unsupported by exhibits or testimony.
- Misrepresented: Other | Court characterized the response as containing widespread mischaracterizations of fact and law suggesting possible use of AI to generate or alter submissions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC?
- The court identified widespread miscitations, fabricated quotes, and unsupported legal theories in the plaintiff's response. Finding these errors exceeded excusable negligence, the court signaled a potential violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and ordered the plaintiff's counsel to show cause regarding the potential use of AI in generating the submission.
- Why does Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- This case highlights the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of filings for AI-generated hallucinations. It serves as a warning that counsel is responsible for the accuracy of all citations and factual assertions, regardless of the research tools employed.
- What does the public record establish about Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC?
- 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 Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC 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.