Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2024)

Case details
Full caption
JAMES GAUTHIER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2024
Disposition
Motion Granted
Majority
Marcia A. Crone (J.) (unanimous Court)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JAMES GAUTHIER,§§Plaintiff,§§versus§CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-281§GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,§§Defendant.§MEMORANDUM AND ORDERPending before the court is the question of whether Plaintiff’s counsel, Brandon Monk(“Monk”), should be sanctioned for submitting a response brief to the court that includes case citesgenerated by artificial intelligence that refer to nonexistent cases as well as to nonexistentquotations. After issuing a show cause order, the court held a hearing on November 21, 2024,in which Monk was asked to show cause as to why the court should not impose sanctions. Havingconsidered the record, the applicable law, and the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing,the court is of the opinion that Monk should be sanctioned. I.BackgroundDefendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (“Goodyear”) moved for summary judgment onSeptember 12, 2024, in this wrongful termination lawsuit (#40). On October 2, 2024, Monk,acting as counsel for Plaintiff, filed a response in opposition to Goodyear’s Motion for SummaryJudgment (#41) (“Response”). As observed by Goodyear in its reply (#42), Monk’s Responsecites two cases that do not exist.1 In addition, the Response includes multiple quotations that1 The nonexistent cases are “Roca v. King’s Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App’x 273, 276 (5thCir. 2012) (unpublished)” and “Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3(5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994) (unpublished).”Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 48 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 538
cannot be located within the cited authority.2 On October 9, 2024, Monk filed a sur-reply (#43)that failed to address the issues Goodyear raised in its reply concerning the authenticity of the caselaw included in the Response.On November 7, 2024, the court entered an order directing Monk to show cause why thecourt should not impose sanctions for his failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure11(b)(2) as well as the Eastern District of Texas Local Rules, including but not limited to LocalRule AT-3(b), stating that a lawyer owes a duty to exercise candor, diligence, and utmost respectto the judiciary, and AT-3(m), requiring a lawyer to review and verify any computer-generatedcontent to ensure that it complies with all such standards. The court set the matter for a hearingon November 21, 2024.On November 15, 2024, Monk filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended DKT 41 (#45),wherein he admits to committing error and requests leave to amend his Response to remove thecitations to the nonexistent cases and quotations. On Thursday, November 21, 2024, the court held the show cause hearing on the matter. Monk explained that he used a generative artificial intelligence (“A.I.”) tool to produce theResponse and failed to verify the content.3 Monk further recounted that he attempted to check the2 The Response cites nonexistent quotations from the following cases: Morales v. SimuFliteTraining Int’l, Inc., 132 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); White v. FCI USA, Inc., 319F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2003); Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2015); TexasDep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1995); Physio GP, Inc. v. Naifeh, 306 S.W.3d886 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.); City of Midland v. O’Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209 (Tex.2000), as well as from the hallucinatory case, Roca v. King’s Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App’x 273(5th Cir. 2012).3 Monk explained that he used “Claude,” which is a generative A.I. tool that can be used fordrafting. Monk stated that he has used Claude in other cases and is in the process of verifying othersubmissions he had made to the court. 2Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 48 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 539
content of the Response by using a feature available through Lexis AI. According to Monk, theLexis AI feature failed to flag the issues with the Response. Monk further stated that despiteGoodyear raising the issues with the citations in the Response in its reply brief, it was not untilafter the court’s Show Cause Order that he attempted to locate the cases and verify their content. Counsel for Goodyear stated that the problematic Response required her and other attorneys at herfirm to spend additional time searching for the cases cited by Monk, researching their legal theoryof the case, and drafting the reply brief. According to counsel for Goodyear, the cost of draftingits reply brief was $7,521.26. Monk admitted that he committed an error and apologized to thecourt.II.AnalysisRule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the standard that attorneys andparties must meet when filing documents in federal court. Specifically, Rule 11(b)(2) requires theattorney filing any litigation document to certify that “ the claims, defenses, and other legalcontentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying,or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2); see Alston v.Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 804 F. App’x 225, 228 (5th Cir. 2020). In determining whether an attorney has complied with Rule 11, the standard under whichhe is judged is “an objective, not subjective, standard of reasonableness.” Snow Ingredients, Inc.v. Snowizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 528 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss.,Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802 (5th Cir. 2003)); accord Cordova v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 92F.4th 266, 273 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Mire v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 144 S. Ct.2608 (2024); Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 955 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2020);3Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 48 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 540
Iris Connex, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 3d 826, 855 (E.D. Tex. 2017). “[T]he centralpurpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus . . . streamline theadministration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cordova, 92 F.4th at 273 (quoting Cooter& Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)). “At the very least, the duties imposed byRule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legalauthorities on which they rely.” Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610, 615 (2d Cir. 2024); see Mata v.Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “[A] litigant’s obligations withrespect to the contents of these papers are not measured solely as of the time they are filed withor submitted to the court, but include reaffirming to the court and advocating positions containedin those pleadings and motions after learning that they cease to have any merit.” FED. R. CIV. P.11 Advisory Committee Note to 1993 Amendment.Further, the Eastern District of Texas’s Local Rules explicitly caution attorneys thatgenerative artificial intelligence tools may produce factual and legal inaccuracies and remindsattorneys that they must verify the information that they submit to the court:If the lawyer, in the exercise of his or her professional legal judgment, believes thatthe client is best served by the use of technology (e.g., ChatGPT, Google Bard,Bing AI Chat, or generative artificial intelligence services), then the lawyer iscautioned that certain technologies may produce factually or legally inaccuratecontent and should never replace the lawyer’s most important asset – the exerciseof independent legal judgment. If a lawyer chooses to employ technology inrepresenting a client, the lawyer continues to be bound by the requirements ofFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Local Rule AT-3, and all other applicablestandards of practice and must review and verify any computer-generated contentto ensure that it complies with all such standards.Local Rule AT-3(m).If any one of Rule 11’s obligations is unsatisfied, the court has discretion to impose anappropriate sanction upon the violating party. Whitehead, 332 F.3d at 802; see Murphy v. Dalton,4Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 48 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 541
No. 21-10589, 2021 WL 4998684, at *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021); Jeanty v. Txfm, Inc., No.4:19-CV-366-ALM-CAN, 2020 WL 8084980, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2020) (quoting Jabaryv. McCullough, 325 F.R.D. 175, 182-83 (E.D. Tex. 2018)), adopted by No. 4:19-CV-366, 2021WL 89982 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2021); Iris Connex, LLC, 235 F. Supp. 3d at 855 (stating that “thedistrict court is vested with considerable discretion in determining the ‘appropriate’ sanction toimpose” upon the party violating Rule 11 (quoting Thomas v. Cap. Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d866, 876-77 (5th Cir. 1988))). “Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions.” Mata, 678 F. Supp. 3d at 448. For instance:The opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception. The Court’stime is taken from other important endeavors. The client may be deprived ofarguments based on authentic judicial precedents. There is potential harm to thereputation of judges and courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of thebogus opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the American judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to defy a judicial ruling by disingenuouslyclaiming doubt about its authenticity.Id. at 448-49.Here, Monk submitted the Response without reading the cases cited, or even confirmingthe existence or validity of the cases included therein. In fact, it is unclear what legal research,if any, Monk completed before filing the Response. Furthermore, after Goodyear specificallyidentified the nonexistent legal authorities contained in the Response, Monk took no action toverify his research. He failed to withdraw or otherwise address theses issues when raised byGoodyear. In fact, Monk’s sur-reply to Goodyear’s reply makes no mention of the problemsinherent in the Response. “This silence is deafening.” Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Assocs., Ltd.,No. 5:21-CV-00064, 2024 WL 3520170, at *7 (W.D. Va. July 24, 2024). It was only after the5Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 48 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 542
court entered the Show Cause Order that Monk sought leave to amend the Response. Monk’sconduct reveals that he “failed to determine that the argument he made was ‘legally tenable.’” Park, 91 F.4th at 615 (quoting Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393). The Response presents a falsestatement of law to the court, and it appears that Monk failed to make a reasonable inquiryrequired by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent into the validity of the arguments he presented. Moreover, he failed to correct these issues when opposing counsel identified them.Accordingly, the court finds the following sanctions are appropriate to deter futureimproper submissions:•Monk is ordered to pay a $2,000 penalty into the registry of the court;•Monk is ordered to attend a continuing legal education course, for a minimum ofone-hour Texas MCLE credit, on the topic of generative A.I. in the legal field andsubmit proof to the court of his attendance by February 3, 2025; and•Monk is ordered to provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff and to file certificationon the docket in this case attesting that he has done so within 21 days of this order. Additionally, the court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend its Response (#45). If Goodyearchooses, it may file a reply to the Amended Response within seven days of this order. IfGoodyear files such a reply, Plaintiff may file a sur-reply within seven days of the reply.6________________________________________MARCIA A. CRONEUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGESIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 25th day of November, 2024.Case 1:23-cv-00281-MAC Document 48 Filed 11/25/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 543
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