HomeCasesY.S. v. John Doe et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Y.S. v. John Doe et al.

D. Colorado · Nov 19, 2025

CO / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re Subpoena to Coinbase, Inc., No. 17-MC-80244, 2018 WL 1898913, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018)' to support delayed notice; the court found this cited opinion does not exist. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re Subpoena to Coinbase, Inc., No. 17-MC-80244, 2018 WL 1898913, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018)' to support delayed notice; the court found this cited opinion does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re Subpoena to Coinbase, Inc., 2023 WL 177977, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023)'; the court could not locate this citation on Westlaw and noted only an unrelated CourtListener docket for 'In re: Coinbase, Inc.' (23-1779). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 964 F.3d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 2020) as approving 'delayed notice' to prevent targets from knowing of subpoenas; the court observed Strike 3 contains no discussion of preventing a subpoena target from learning of the subpoena and therefore does not support plaintiff's proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Hard Drive Productions, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011) as supporting nondisclosure/delayed notice; the court found Hard Drive authorized notice to subscribers (the opposite of delayed notice) and does not support plaintiff's position. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-27, 584 F. Supp. 2d 240, 254 (D.D.C. 2008) to argue courts approved email service for early discovery; the court noted Arista is a decision from the District of Maine (584 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D. Me. 2008)) and did not address Rule 45 email service, so the citation was both jurisdictionally and substantively mischaracterized.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

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

Record details

ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Colorado

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateNov 19, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re Subpoena to Coinbase, Inc., No. 17-MC-80244, 2018 WL 1898913, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018)' to support delayed notice; the court found this cited opinion does not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re Subpoena to Coinbase, Inc., 2023 WL 177977, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023)'; the court could not locate this citation on Westlaw and noted only an unrelated CourtListener docket for 'In re: Coinbase, Inc.' (23-1779).
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 964 F.3d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 2020) as approving 'delayed notice' to prevent targets from knowing of subpoenas; the court observed Strike 3 contains no discussion of preventing a subpoena target from learning of the subpoena and therefore does not support plaintiff's proposition.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Hard Drive Productions, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011) as supporting nondisclosure/delayed notice; the court found Hard Drive authorized notice to subscribers (the opposite of delayed notice) and does not support plaintiff's position.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-27, 584 F. Supp. 2d 240, 254 (D.D.C. 2008) to argue courts approved email service for early discovery; the court noted Arista is a decision from the District of Maine (584 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D. Me. 2008)) and did not address Rule 45 email service, so the citation was both jurisdictionally and substantively mischaracterized.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Y.S. v. John Doe et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re Subpoena to Coinbase, Inc., No. 17-MC-80244, 2018 WL 1898913, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018)' to support delayed notice; the court found this cited opinion does not exist. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Y.S. v. John Doe et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Y.S. v. John Doe et al.?: 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.
Which source supports this Y.S. v. John Doe et al. 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.

Labonte v. Bokf, et al.D. Colorado · Feb 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Hanson v. Nest Home Lending, LLC et al.D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Y.S. v. John Doe, et al.D. Colorado · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (2)D. Colorado · Jan 28, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Harris v. Take-Two Interactive SoftwareD. Colorado · May 6, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3)D. Colorado · Feb 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

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

Record details

ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Colorado

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateNov 19, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re Subpoena to Coinbase, Inc., 2023 WL 177977, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023)'; the court could not locate this citation on Westlaw and noted only an unrelated CourtListener docket for 'In re: Coinbase, Inc.' (23-1779).

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 964 F.3d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 2020) as approving 'delayed notice' to prevent targets from knowing of subpoenas; the court observed Strike 3 contains no discussion of preventing a subpoena target from learning of the subpoena and therefore does not support plaintiff's proposition.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Hard Drive Productions, Inc., 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011) as supporting nondisclosure/delayed notice; the court found Hard Drive authorized notice to subscribers (the opposite of delayed notice) and does not support plaintiff's position.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-27, 584 F. Supp. 2d 240, 254 (D.D.C. 2008) to argue courts approved email service for early discovery; the court noted Arista is a decision from the District of Maine (584 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D. Me. 2008)) and did not address Rule 45 email service, so the citation was both jurisdictionally and substantively mischaracterized.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Y.S. v. John Doe et al.?

Why does Y.S. v. John Doe et al. matter for legal AI risk?

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

What does the public record establish about Y.S. v. John Doe et al.?

Which source supports this Y.S. v. John Doe et al. 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.