That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2)
E.D. California · May 21, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court declined to impose sanctions on Petitioner's counsel or the law student, choosing instead to discharge the Order to Show Cause. The court emphasized that while generative AI may assist in legal practice, it must not be used to verify legal authority or citations, particularly when the AI was the source of the citations being checked.
- Why the court cared
- The court exercised its discretion to discharge the OSC based on counsel's sincere remorse, the junior status of the law student involved, and the proactive steps taken by counsel to implement a formal AI usage policy and complete relevant training following the court's initial concerns.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates judicial leniency when counsel takes immediate remedial action—such as implementing formal AI policies and training—after submitting AI-hallucinated citations. It reinforces the court's expectation that AI must never be used to verify its own generated legal research.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's brief cited 'G.A.A. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01102-EPG, 2025 WL 3030589 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025)'; Court found the Westlaw citation corresponded to a different real case, indicating a hallucinated citation likely from GenAI. Outcome: No Sanctions in circumstances. Order to Show Cause is here. The court concluded:"After careful consideration, including the involvement of a law student at the beginning of their legal career and for the reasons stated above, the Court exercises its discretion to discharge the OSC (ECF No. 49) and declines to impose sanctions on Petitioner’s counsel Cummings or law student [XX] for counsel’s failure to fully comply with the Court’s January 13, 2026 order. The Court repeats its admonishment that while AI and generative AI tools can assist counsel and parties, these tools must be used responsibly. They should not be used to verify legal authorityand citations, especially when generative AI tools were used to generate or identify the legal authority and citations being checked."
This case illustrates judicial leniency when counsel takes immediate remedial action—such as implementing formal AI policies and training—after submitting AI-hallucinated citations. It reinforces the court's expectation that AI must never be used to verify its own generated legal research.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel and law student admitted using ChatGPT for drafting and citation verification.
Order discharging an Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding failure to comply with court orders and the use of hallucinated citations.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's brief cited 'G.A.A. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01102-EPG, 2025 WL 3030589 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025)'; Court found the Westlaw citation corresponded to a different real case, indicating a hallucinated citation likely from GenAI.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court previously identified a citation in Petitioner's reply to 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)' that it could not locate and which appeared to be hallucinated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court previously identified a citation in Petitioner's reply to 'Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020)' that it could not locate and which appeared to be hallucinated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2)?
- The court declined to impose sanctions on Petitioner's counsel or the law student, choosing instead to discharge the Order to Show Cause. The court emphasized that while generative AI may assist in legal practice, it must not be used to verify legal authority or citations, particularly when the AI was the source of the citations being checked.
- Why does That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2) matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates judicial leniency when counsel takes immediate remedial action—such as implementing formal AI policies and training—after submitting AI-hallucinated citations. It reinforces the court's expectation that AI must never be used to verify its own generated legal research.
- What does the public record establish about That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2)?
- 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 That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (2) 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.