Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1B0TE0CGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.

E.D. Michigan · Oct 30, 2025

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
E.D. Michigan
Record ID
warner-v-gilbarco-inc-2025-10-30
Observed outcome
The court issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of fabricated citations.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff after she twice submitted 'phantom' case citations in her filings. The court attributed these errors to the likely use of generative AI and cautioned that future misrepresentations or failures to comply with procedural rules would result in sanctions.

Why the decision-maker cared

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff twice cited 'Smith v. Dow Chem. Co., 166 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D. Mich. 1996)' to argue depositions should not proceed; the court found this a 'phantom' citation and noted the actual existing opinion is Hamm v. Nasatka Barriers Inc., 166 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1996), which does not mention depositions.

Why it matters now

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

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Employment
  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
Generative AI programs
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Discovery motion hearing and order on Plaintiff's amended motion to compel and motion for protective order.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The court attributed the errors to the use of generative AI programs.

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.