Y.S. v. John Doe et al.
D. Colorado · Nov 19, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Colorado
- Record ID
- ys-v-john-doe-et-al-2025-11-19
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the plaintiff's motion without prejudice and issued a formal warning regarding Rule 11 compliance.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after finding that he submitted multiple fabricated and misrepresented legal citations in support of his motion for expedited discovery. The court attributed these errors to the likely use of AI tools and warned that further non-compliance with Rule 11 obligations could lead to sanctions, including dismissal.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Legal Authority
- Hallucination Of Nonexistent Citations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and nondisclosure, issued by a magistrate judge following multiple supplemental filings.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court explicitly mentions the suspected use of AI to assist with drafting.
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).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.
- Ensure required disclosures are accurate and timely.