**Judge Trina L

Judge Trina L. Thompson sits in the Oakland division of the Northern District of California, one of the most tech-forward federal courts in the country. The N.D. California handles more AI, technology, and intellectual property litigation than almost any other district, which means the judges here are unusually sophisticated about how these tools work—and how they can go wrong.

California's judiciary has been moving aggressively on AI governance. The state's Judicial Council adopted Rule 10.430 in July 2025, requiring every California state court to establish a formal generative AI use policy by December 15, 2025. On the federal side, at least 10 California federal judges have issued individual AI disclosure requirements. If you're filing before Judge Thompson, you're operating in a district where AI literacy is high and tolerance for AI-related errors is low.

N.D. California's Approach to AI in Court Filings

The Northern District of California has been at the forefront of federal AI policy. Multiple judges in the district—including Judge Vince Chhabria, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, and others—have issued individual standing orders addressing AI use in filings. The N.D. California hasn't adopted a single district-wide AI order, which means requirements vary from judge to judge. Some judges require disclosure and certification, others have more specific requirements about what must be verified. Practitioners filing in this district need to check the assigned judge's individual standing orders before every filing—assumptions based on what another N.D. California judge requires could lead to compliance gaps.

Why the Oakland Division Matters for AI Litigation

The Oakland division of the N.D. California handles a disproportionate share of technology and intellectual property cases. Many of the companies building AI tools—and many of the plaintiffs suing them—are based in the Bay Area. Judge Thompson's docket reflects this reality. Cases involving data privacy, employment discrimination in tech, and consumer protection regularly land before Oakland division judges. This means attorneys appearing before Judge Thompson are more likely than average to be litigating AI-related substantive issues, not just worrying about AI-assisted drafting. The irony of submitting AI-hallucinated citations in a case about AI technology would not be lost on the court.

California Rule 10.430 and Its Impact on Federal Practice

California Rule 10.430, adopted by the Judicial Council on July 18, 2025, requires every state court in California to establish a generative AI use policy covering both court staff and court users. While this rule applies to state courts, not federal courts, it establishes a baseline expectation that reverberates through the entire California legal community. Federal practitioners in the N.D. California are operating in an environment where state courts already require AI policies, attorneys are expected to understand AI disclosure obligations, and the professional culture has shifted toward transparency. The California State Bar has also issued guidance on AI use, reinforcing that disclosure and verification are professional obligations.

AI Sanctions Precedent in California Federal Courts

California federal courts have been among the most aggressive in sanctioning AI misuse. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., a California appellate court issued the state's first published opinion on AI-fabricated citations, imposing a $10,000 fine after finding that 21 of 23 quotes from cited cases were fabricated. A separate California federal court ordered two law firms to pay $31,100 for using bogus AI-generated research. These cases send a clear message: California courts—state and federal—will impose real financial consequences for unverified AI use. Judge Thompson sits in a district where these precedents are well-known and will be applied.

Filing Checklist for Judge Thompson's Courtroom

Step 1: Check Judge Thompson's individual standing orders on the N.D. California website before filing anything. Requirements can change without notice. Step 2: Verify every citation through Westlaw or Lexis—California courts have already imposed five-figure sanctions for AI-fabricated citations. Step 3: If you used any generative AI tool, prepare a disclosure statement even if not explicitly required—the N.D. California culture strongly favors transparency. Step 4: Pay special attention to California-specific citations, which AI tools frequently mishandle due to the state's complex statutory and regulatory framework. Step 5: Document your AI use and verification process internally—if challenged, you'll need to show your work.

The Bottom Line: Before filing in Judge Thompson's courtroom, check her individual standing orders, verify every citation independently, and prepare to disclose AI use proactively. The N.D. California has zero tolerance for AI-generated fabrications, backed by five-figure sanctions in recent cases.