An v. Archblock, Inc. (2025)

Case details
Full caption
Daniel Jaiyong AN v. ARCHBLOCK, INC
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Delaware (DE)
Court
Delaware Supreme Court
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
Lori (Justice)
An v. Archblock, Inc., Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 1024661Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING.Court of Chancery of Delaware.Daniel Jaiyong ANv.ARCHBLOCK, INC.C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW|April 4, 2025Editor's Note: This document contains discussion of unverified citations, likely generated by AI tools used by a party orcounsel. These citations are not attributable to the Court. The unverified citations have been preserved as part of the officialrecord, but links are unavailable.Attorneys and Law FirmsDaniel Jaiyong An, 27 Calle Orta 3D Apt., Cond Los Nardos A, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907A. Thompson Bayliss, Esquire, Ben Lucy, Esquire, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200, Wilmington,Delaware 19807OpinionLori W. Will, Vice Chancellor*1 Dear Counsel and Mr. An:I write regarding the petitioner's motion to compel discovery from the respondent (the “Motion”).1 There are several incorrectcitations to case law in the Motion.2 Some of the authorities do not stand for the cited propositions. Others are quoted forstatements they do not contain.For example:• The Motion cites Terramar Retail Centers, LLC v. Marion #2-Seaport Trust U/A/D/ June 21, 2002 to explain that “[t]heCourt has broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes and fashioning appropriate remedies.”3 But Terramar addresseda motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2). It did not make the point that the petitioner offers it for—or even involve discovery.• The Motion twice cites Deutsch v. ZST Digital Networks, Inc. for the idea that the Court of Chancery disfavors parties’attempts to impose unilateral discovery stays.4 It attributes the following quote to Deutsch: “A party cannot unilaterallydecide to stay discovery.”5 That quote is not in Deutsch, which addressed a receiver's request for an arrest warrant forcontempt. In fact, I am unable to find any case—in Delaware or elsewhere—with that quote.6• The Motion cites Production Resources Group, LLC v. NCT Group, Inc. to support the argument that the Court of Chanceryinterprets Rule 26 “broadly to facilitate the free flow of information between parties.”7 It attributes the following quote
An v. Archblock, Inc., Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2to the decision: “Delaware courts have traditionally construed the scope of permissible discovery liberally.”8 That quoteis not in NCT Group, or any other case I can find.9Based on these miscites, I suspect that the petitioner used generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) to prepare his Motion,and that the program may have “hallucinated.”10*2 The use of GenAI in legal work is not inherently problematic. It can benefit litigants and courts alike. GenAI streamlineslegal research, assists in drafting documents, and supports efficient document review and summarization.11 By enhancing theaccessibility of legal services, GenAI can lower barriers to justice.Still, GenAI carries significant risks to the legal system if it is used carelessly. The Motion exemplifies the potential downsides.Specifically, the petitioner failed to ensure the accuracy of material prepared with GenAI and submitted to the court. “Quiteobviously, many harms flow from such deception—including wasting the opposing party's time and money, the Court's timeand resources, and reputational harm to the legal system (to name a few).”12The petitioner's submission of a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable.13 “[I]t is improper and unacceptable for litigants—including pro se litigants—to submit ‘non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.’ ”14 At the same time,“Delaware judges traditionally (and naturally) treat self-represented individuals with some degree of latitude” so long as theparty's pro se status does not “impose[ ] on the party opponent in a material way.”15Mindful of these interests, I would have been inclined to deny the Motion without prejudice if the petitioner had been forthright.In his reply, however, the petitioner doubled down. He insists that though “some of the quoted language [in his cites] wasparaphrased rather than verbatim, the principles from the cited cases are directly relevant and on point.”16 That is untrue, as Iexplained above.17 The Motion is therefore denied with prejudice.The petitioner should consider himself warned.18 Although I am not sanctioning the petitioner today, he must ensure thatevery future filing satisfies his obligations to this court, including that the filing is truthful, accurate, and cites to legitimateauthorities.19 Any future filing must also include the certification required by the order accompanying this letter opinion, whichaddresses the use of GenAI.20 The petitioner's failure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions, includingmonetary penalties, stricken filings, or the dismissal of this suit.I. CONCLUSION*3 The petitioner's Motion is denied. Similar misconduct by the petitioner in the future will yield sanctions. Any future filingmust include the requisite certification on GenAI usage, as set out in the order accompanying this letter opinion.Sincerely yours,/s/ Lori W. WillLori W. WillVice ChancellorAll CitationsNot Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2025 WL 1024661
An v. Archblock, Inc., Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Footnotes1Pet.’s Mot. to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 25) (“Mot.”).2The defendants likewise observe that the Motion “fabricates authority that does not exist.” See Defs.’ Opp'n to Pet.’s Mot. to Compel(Dkt. 26) 43.3Mot. 12 (purportedly citing Terramar Retail Ctrs., LLC v. Marion #2-Seaport Tr. U/A/D/ June 21, 2002, 2017 WL 3575712 (Del.Ch. Aug. 18, 2017)).4Id. ¶¶ 20, 29 (purportedly citing Deutsch v. ZST Digit. Networks, Inc., 2018 WL 3005822, at *3 (Del. Ch. June 14, 2018)).5Id. 29 (purportedly quoting Deutsch, 2018 WL 3005822, at *3).6I searched Westlaw's “All State & Federal” database for this quote. The only hit returned was the petitioner's own motion to compel.Interestingly, though, when prompted to find a Delaware decision with this quote, ChatGPT directed me to the Terramar decisionfor a similar cite.7Mot. 11 (purportedly citing Prod. Res. Grp., LLC v. NCT Grp., 863 A.2d 772, 802 (Del. Ch. 2004)).8Id. (purportedly quoting NCT Grp., 863 A.2d at 802).9As with Deutsch, I searched Westlaw's “All State & Federal” database for the quoted text. The only hit was the motion at issue here.See supra note 6.10“AI hallucination is a phenomenon wherein a large language model (LLM)—often a generative AI chatbot or computer vision tool—perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent or imperceptible to human observers, creating outputs that are nonsensical oraltogether inaccurate.” Harris as Next Friend of RNH v. Adams, ––– F. Supp. 3d. ––––, 2024 WL 4843837, at *1 n.3 (D. Mass. Nov.20, 2024) (quoting What are Hallucinations?, IBM, https://www.imb.com/topics/ai-hallucinations).11See, e.g., Berger v. Graf Acquisition, LLC, 2024 WL 4541011, at *2 (Del. Ch. Oct. 21, 2024) (discussing the efficiencies of technology-assisted document review).12Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence, 2023 WL 6976510, at *8 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2023); see alsoPark v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2dCir. 2004) (recognizing that relying on “non-existent precedent generated by” AI is “an abuse of the adversary system” (citationomitted)); Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443, 448-49 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (discussing “harms flow[ing] from the submission offake opinions”).13Anon. v.New York City Dep't of Educ., 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024) (“Sanctions may be imposed for submittingfalse and nonexistent legal authority to the Court.” (citations omitted)).14Id. (quoting Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448); Morgan, 2023 WL 6976510, at *7 (“Although courts ‘make some allowances for the prose [p]laintiff's failure to cite to proper legal authority,’ courts do not make allowances for a [party] who cites to fake, nonexistent,misleading authorities.” (quoting James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013))).15Govette v. Elec. Referral Manager, Inc., 2021 WL 2311956, at *2 (Del. Ch. June 7, 2021).16Pet.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 27) 27.17See supra notes 3-9 and accompanying text (discussing cited cases).18Cf. Anon., 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (declining to sanction a pro se litigant for citing fake authorities but warning that “the Courtwill not look kindly on similar infractions in the future”); Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 2024 WL 4108005, at *2 n.3 (D.Ariz. Sept. 6, 2024) (reminding a pro se litigant that she must comply with procedural rules and that “future filings with citationsto nonexistent cases may result in sanctions such as dismissal of her claims”); Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols., 2024 WL 3812259,at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024) (acknowledging the possibility that a pro se plaintiff was “not aware of the risk that ChatGPT and
An v. Archblock, Inc., Not Reported in Atl. Rptr. (2025) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4similar AI programs are capable of generating fake case citations” but “warning” the plaintiff that “further filings with citations tononexistence cases may result in sanctions”).19He must also abide by his meet and confer obligation before filing a discovery motion and understand that this court is inclined toenter a confidentiality order in advance of any discovery.20See Order Requiring Certification on Use Of Generative AI (Dkt. 39). This order is based upon a thoughtful precedent authored byJudge Brennan in the Superior Court. SeeLillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A., 2025 WL 800833 (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2025) (ORDER).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access