Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.
N.D. California · Apr 7, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court declined to impose sanctions on counsel for the inclusion of a fictitious, likely AI-generated case citation. The court issued a formal warning, emphasizing that attorneys have an affirmative duty to verify the existence and accuracy of all legal authorities and citations, regardless of the tools used to generate them.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that while counsel's inclusion of a fictitious citation was concerning, the prompt filing of a corrected brief and counsel's stated remedial steps mitigated the need for sanctions. The court emphasized the duty of candor and the requirement for reasonable inquiry under Rule 11.
- Why it matters now
- File a corrected brief immediately when a fabricated citation surfaces; prompt correction often avoids sanctions.
Why this matter is tracked
In Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc., the court addressed a request for sanctions against plaintiff's counsel for including a likely AI-generated, fictitious case citation in an opposition brief. Counsel filed a corrected brief removing the citation the day after the original filing and following contact from opposing counsel. While the court expressed concern regarding the potential use of AI without verification, it declined to impose sanctions, noting counsel's prompt correction and subsequent remedial steps. The court issued a formal warning that failing to verify the existence and accuracy of legal authorities—regardless of whether they are generated by AI—constitutes grounds for potential future sanctions. The court separately granted in part a motion for monetary sanctions regarding a canceled deposition.
File a corrected brief immediately when a fabricated citation surfaces; prompt correction often avoids sanctions.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court refers to the citation as likely generated by an AI tool.
Order on motion for sanctions in a federal employment discrimination action.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Original opposition included a repeatedly-cited, purported E.D. Cal. decision that the court found likely to be a fictitious AI-generated case; counsel later filed a corrected brief removing the citation and the court declined to sanction.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.?
- The court declined to impose sanctions on counsel for the inclusion of a fictitious, likely AI-generated case citation. The court issued a formal warning, emphasizing that attorneys have an affirmative duty to verify the existence and accuracy of all legal authorities and citations, regardless of the tools used to generate them.
- Why does Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- File a corrected brief immediately when a fabricated citation surfaces; prompt correction often avoids sanctions.
- What does the public record establish about Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc.?
- 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 Thanh Nguy v. Jabil Inc. 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.