Hill v. Auto Club Family Ins. Co. (Sept. 17, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Latasha Hill v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Sept. 17, 2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
Bradley W. Rath (J.) (unanimous Court)
LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFF v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2663676Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, S.D.Mississippi, Eastern Division.LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFFv.AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCECOMPANY DEFENDANTCivil No. 2:24-cv-00107-KS-BWR|Filed 09/17/2025Editor's Note: This decision contains citation referencesthat are incorrect or do not actually exist. These invalidcitations appeared in the original court opinion and have beenpreserved as written since they are part of the official record.Any links to these invalid citations have been removed.ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'SLATE DISCOVERY MOTIONSBRADLEY W. RATH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE*1 BEFORE THE COURT are the following late discoveryMotions filed by pro se Plaintiff Latasha Hill:1. Hill's “Motion to Compel Production of ClaimsManual and Supplemental Responses to DiscoveryRequests” [88]. Defendant Auto Club Family InsuranceCompany (AAA) filed a Response [96]. Hill did not filea reply.2. Hill's “Emergency Motion for Sanctions Under FRCPand L.U.Civ.R. 37 for Defendant's Bad-Faith DiscoveryAbuse, Spoliation, and Fraud on the Court” [89]. AAAfiled a Response [97]. Hill did not file a reply.3. Hill's “Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 11,26(g)(3), 37(c)(1), and L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2) & 26(a)(3)for Defendant's Exhibit Fraud and Expert DisclosureViolations” [104]. AAA filed a Response [111]. Hill didnot file a reply.4. Hill's “Motion to Compel Discovery (FRCP 37(a))and GOOD FAITH CERTIFICATE (L.U.Civ.R. 37)Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Entry ofan Order Requiring Production,” which is docketed asMotions [114] and [115]. AAA filed a Response [136].Hill did not file a reply.5. Hill's “Motion to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses/Exhibits and for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.37(c)(1),” which is docketed as Motions [118] and [119].AAA filed a Response [134]. Hill did not file a reply.I. BACKGROUNDA. Procedural HistoryPlaintiff filed her Complaint through attorneys P. ManionAnderson and Hunter Salamone on May 17, 2024 in theCircuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi. Pl.'s Compl.[1-2]. On July 19, 2024, AAA removed the case to this Courtbased on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Def.'sNot. [1] at 3-4.On August 28, 2024, a Case Management Order [8] wasentered that established deadlines and a trial date. In theyear-plus since, both sides designated experts, the discoverydeadline passed on April 1, 2025, and the deadline fordispositive and Daubert was initially April 15, 2025. CaseMgmt. Ord. [8] at 4-5. On April 15, 2025, Anderson, on behalfof Hill, filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [25],and AAA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [27].Two weeks later, on May 1, 2025, Anderson moved towithdraw as Hill's counsel and requested a stay of proceedingsto allow Hill time to obtain substitute counsel. Pl.'s Mot.[31] [32]. On May 2, 2025, Hill filed a letter that provided,“effectively immediately, I, Latasha Hill, will be representingmyself pro se in the above-referenced matter until furthernotice as I continue seeking new legal counsel.” Pl.'s Letter[33] at 1. Hill said that the letter “serve[d] as sufficientnotice and confirmation of the termination of [Anderson's]representation in this case.” Id. On May 21, 2025, Salamonemoved to withdraw as Hill's counsel. Pl.'s Mot. [50].On May 21, 2025, United States District Judge Keith Starrettheld a telephone conference to address Anderson's andSalamone's Motions to Withdraw [31] [32] [50] and Hill'sfiling of sixteen documents on her own accord from May 5through 21, 2025, wherein she discussed her disagreementswith Anderson regarding case strategy, settlement, and his
LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFF v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2fee. See ECF Nos. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42][43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49].*2 On May 22, 2025, Judge Starrett issued an Orderallowing Anderson and Salamone to withdraw and denyingAnderson's request to stay proceedings because Hill “not onlyvoiced her consent to the Court during the conference but alsofiled a Notice of Pro Se Representation [33], agreeing to allowher attorneys to withdraw.” Order [51] at 1; Pl.'s Letter [33] at1. The Order struck sixteen documents Hill had filed on herown, before her attorneys were allowed to withdraw, and Hillwasreminded that filings in this caseshall relate only to the actionbefore the Court, i.e., claimsagainst Defendant, Auto Club FamilyInsurance Company. Issues relatingto her relationship, fee agreements,and/or disagreements with her priorattorneys are not before the Court, andany documents addressing such issues,as have been filed previously, aresubject to being stricken sua sponte.Id. at 2.Judge Starrett kept intact Hills's deadline of June 2, 2025to respond to AAA's Motion for Summary Judgment andtold her that she could file a motion requesting more time torespond if needed. Id. On June 2, 2025, Hill filed a Responseto AAA's Motion for Summary Judgment, attaching overforty pages of exhibits. Pl.'s Resp. [53]. AAA replied on June9, 2025. Def.'s Reply [54].Eighteen days later, on June 20, 2025, Hill filed a Motionfor Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Pl.'s Mot.[69]. This was nine and a half months after the September6, 2024 amended pleadings deadline, and after Hill hadreviewed AAA's Motion for Summary Judgment with itsaccompanying 122 pages of exhibits. On June 30, 2025,Hill filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second AmendedComplaint, accompanied by sixty pages of exhibits. Pl.'s Mot.[71], Pl.'s Mem. [72]. Also on June 30, 2025, and withoutleave of Court, Hill filed a Second Amended Complaint. Pl.'sSec. Am. Compl. [75].On July 9, 2025, Judge Starrett granted Hill's Motion forPartial Summary Judgment, observing that AAA did notoppose the relief. Order [82] at 1. Hill was granted summaryjudgment on AAA's Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, Fourteenth,Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth affirmativedefenses. Id.On July 31, 2025, Judge Starrett granted Hill's Motions toAmend [69] [71]. The Order provided: “There being noresponse from Defendants within the time allowed by theLocal Uniform Civil Rules, the Motions are hereby granted.Ord. [98] at 1 (citing L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)). AAA was givenuntil August 14, 2025 to answer Hill's amended allegations,which are contained in a composite of documents [1-2] [69-1][69-2] [71] [74] [75] that are now termed the AmendedComplaint. Hill's Amended Complaint added four claims thatshe labeled as (1) violation of UCC § 1-304 of the UniformCommercial Code (Count VIII), (2) fraudulent inducement(Count IX); (3) negligent inspection (Count X); and (4) fraudand misrepresentation (Count XI). See Pl.'s Compl. [1-2]at 5-10, Pl.'s First Am. Compl. [69-1] at 1-3; Pl.'s Supp.Page [69-2] at 1; Pl.'s Mot. [71] at 1, Pl.'s Supp. Page [74]at 1-3; Pl.'s Sec. Am. Compl. [75] at 1-4. Judge Starrettconcluded that given Hill's new claims, denial of AAA'sMotion for Summary Judgment [27] without prejudice wasappropriate. Order [98] at 1. Judge Starrett reset the deadlinefor dispositive and Daubert motions to September 19, 2025.AAA has now answered Hill's Amended Complaint. Def.'sAnswer [110].B. Pending discovery motions1. First discovery Motion [88]Hill's first discovery Motion [88], filed July 15, 2025,seeks “the Claims Manual and related claims handlingdocuments responsive to Plaintiff's Requests for Production.”Pl.'s Mot. [88] at 1. Hill maintains that “Eberl's production(ESC 0001-00456) omits key metadata (e.g., timestamps,edit histories). FRCP 34(b)(2)(E) requires native-formatproduction.” Ex. [88-1] at 1. Plaintiff asserts the documentsare relevant to her “claims of bad faith, breach of contract,and unfair claims practices.” Id. She invokes Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) and submits that AAA has aduty to supplement its production with these documents andinformation. Pl.'s Mot. [88] at 2. Hill demands AAA produce aprivilege log for any withheld documents pursuant to Federal
LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFF v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A). Id. Hill provided theRequests for Production that she seeks AAA to supplement:*3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce thecomplete claims handling manual in effect for Plaintiff'spolicy (Pl-81826-1) from 2021-2022, including all sectionsrelated to wind damage claims.ANSWER: Defendant objects to this request to the extentit seeks information that is irrelevant, inadmissible, and notreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. Defendant further objects to this request to theextent it seeks documents beyond the scope of Rule 26,Fed. R. Civ. P. and is not proportionate to the needs of thecase.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce alladjuster notes, emails, and reports from Eberl ClaimsServices regarding Claim #014843458.ANSWER: Any responsive documents have beenpreviously produced in Auto Club's Initial Disclosures (SeeAuto Club Initial Disclosures 00001-00884) and by EbertClaims Service's response to Plaintiff's non-party subpoena(See ESC 00001-00456).Pl.'s Ex. [88-2] at 1-2.AAA opposes Hill's Motion because Hill requested AAA tosupplement its responses to Requests for Productions 1 and2 more than two months after the April 1, 2025 discoverydeadline, and Hill's Motion was filed three and a half monthsafter the discovery deadline. Def.'s Resp. [96] at 1-2. AAA'scounsel Priscilla K. Williams submitted that before Hillfiled the Motion, Williams “attempted to speak with [Hill]regarding these discovery requests ... [Hill] would not speakto the undersigned without a written agreement as to theparameters of the phone call prior to the phone call takingplace.” Id. at 2. AAA opposes Hill's Motion because Hill didnot confer in good faith before filing the discovery motionwhich the Case Management Order requires. Id. at 3. AAAsubmits that Hill's Motion should also be denied because itwas not accompanied by a Good Faith Certificate, whichLocal Uniform Civil Rule 37(a) requires. Id.2. Second discovery Motion [89]Hill's second discovery Motion [89] requests sanctionsagainst opposing counsel Williams for “[w]illful refusal toproduce the claims manual,” “[f]raudulent misrepresentationregarding adjuster notes,” and “[s]poliation of evidence anddefense counsel's ethical violations under Mississippi Ruleof Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).” Pl.'s Mot. [89] at 1.According to Hill, “[t]he manual is central to proving AutoClub's systematic denial of wind-damage claims.” Id. Hillsays the claims manual has been withheld without producinga privilege log, and if the manual does not exist, “it constitutesdestruction of evidence” that would prove AAA violatedits own policies. Id. at 2-3. Hill alleges that Williamsmade a fraudulent statement when she represented thatadjustor notes had been produced because “[t]he Eberl Claimssubpoena (Doc. 22) proves critical notes were omitted.” Id.at 2. According to Hill, “[a]djustor notes were intentionallydestroyed.” Id. at 3. Hill asks that AAA's pleadings be strickenfor discovery fraud and she be awarded costs. Id.Hill's Motion provides that “[c]laims manuals are routinelydiscoverable in bad-faith insurance cases (Patterson v.Allstate, 2019 WL 1239855 (S.D. Miss. 2019)).” Id. at 2.Hill writes that “Mississippi law (Architex Ass'n v. ScottsdaleIns., 2022 WL 1234567) holds claims manuals discoverablein bad-faith litigation.” Id. Hill alleges there is “fraud on thecourt under Hazy v. Ford Motor Co., 2021 WL 2345678.” Id.at 3.*4 AAA opposes the second discovery Motion for the sametimeliness and procedural reasons as Hill's first discoveryMotion. Def.'s Resp. [97] at 1. AAA claims Hill's accusations“regarding withholding documents are either conclusorystatements without support or are just plainly inaccurate.” Id.AAA maintains that Hill's arguments based on a “systematicdenial of wind-damage” claim are inconsequential becauseHill did not plead a “systematic denial of wind-damage”claim. Id. at 2. AAA researched the cases Hill cite and didnot find the cases “Patterson v. Allstate, 2019 WL 1239855(S.D. Miss. 2019)” and “Hazy v. Ford Motor Co., 2021 WL2345678” cited by Hill. Def.'s Resp. [97] at 2-4. AAA'sresearch found that Architex was a Mississippi SupremeCourt case, but it “did not decide a discovery questionor the production of a claims manual, but rather decidedwhether a policy definition of ‘occurrence’ excluded coveragefor property damage caused by a subcontractor's allegednegligence.” Id. at 2 (citing Architex Ass'n v. Scottsdale Ins.,27 So. 3d 1148 (Miss. 2010)).3. Third discovery Motion [104]Hill's third discovery Motion [104] moves for sanctionsagainst AAA and Williams “for fraudulent exhibits (Docket28) and untimely, deceptive expert disclosures (Docket21)[.]” Pl.'s Mot. [104] at 1. Hill submits that AAA's
LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFF v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4expert disclosures were due February 6, 2025 but not“filed” until February 17, 2025. Id. at 3 (referencing Def.'sNotice of Service of Expert Disclosures [21]). Hill claims“Inadequate Expert Report” summarily, listing the words andrules “Expert qualifications (FRCP 26(a)(2)(B)(iv))”, “Basisfor opinions (FRCP 26(a)(2)(B)(i)),” and “Compensationagreement (FRCP 26(a)(2)(B)(vi)).” Id. Hill asserts thatshe “could not depose the expert or rebut opinions beforediscovery closed.” Id.The rest of Hill's third Motion [104] concerns AAA's Motionfor Summary Judgment. Hill complains of “[u]nlabeled,[u]nauthenticated [e]xhibits” attached to AAA's Motionfor Summary Judgment, a “[f]raudulent CoreLogic [w]ind[r]eport” that “[c]ontradicts NOAA weather data (Plaintiff'sEx. B, Docket 72) showing hurricane-force winds on the loss”and omission of “metadata (creation date, author), suggestingfabrication.” Id. at 2. AAA urges that Hill's arguments aboutthe exhibits to AAA's Motion for Summary Judgment aremoot because the Motion for Summary Judgment was deniedas moot when Hill was allowed to amend her Complaint.Def.'s Resp. [111] at 1.AAA “admits that its expert disclosure was due February 6,2025, and was not made until the next day.” Id. at 2. AAA filedits Notice of Service of Expert Disclosures [21] on February17, 2025, but disclosed Robert James as a retained expert tendays earlier, on February 7, 2025, producing his written andsigned report, resume, and rate schedule. Id. (citing Def.'s Ex.[111-1]). AAA disputes Hill's claim that there was not enoughtime to depose James because “a period of fifty-three daysexisted between the date of Defendant's expert disclosuresand the close of discovery on April 1, 2025.” Id. AAA saysHill never requested to depose James. Id.4. Fourth and fifth discovery Motions [114] [115]Hill's fourth and fifth discovery Motions [114] [115] repeatrequests for discovery sought in the first discovery Motion[88]. Hill adds a request “to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) corporatedesignee deposition.” Pl.'s Mot. [114] at 1; Pl.'s Mot. [115] at1. AAA restates its defenses to the earlier discovery Motions.Def.'s Resp. [136].5. Sixth and seventh discovery Motions [118] [119]Hill's sixth and seventh discovery Motions [118] [119] repeatearlier requests. Pl.'s Mot. [118] at 1. Hill claims AAA'sdiscovery responses are evasive, noncommittal, and intendedto obscure. Id. at 3.AAA adds to its defense to Hill's discovery Motion that itsresponses to Hill's Requests for Production 1 and 2 showthat Hill already possesses some of the documents she isnow requesting. Def.'s Resp. [134] at 2. AAA denies Hill'saccusation that AAA produced discovery haphazardly in a“document dump.” Id. AAA says that its*5 initial disclosures itemized bybates number reference specificcategories of documents, such asthe certified policy, Eberl Claimsphoto sheets, documents from UnitedClaims Specialists regarding Plaintiff'sclaim, claim denial letters, andcorrespondence from Auto Clubto Plaintiff and/or to Plaintiff'srepresentative.... Although the claimfile was designated as the entirety ofthe initial disclosure production, thatis because all documents produced arethe claim file.Id.AAA asserts that its responses to Hill's requests forproduction also identify documents by specific bates numberpages. Id. As for Hill's complaints about Eberl ClaimsService's subpoena response, AAA submits that it has nocontrol over a third-party's production in response to asubpoena. Id.II. DISCUSSIONThe discovery period expired on April 1, 2025, which wasone month before Hill's counsel moved to withdraw. “Thediscovery deadline is that date by which all responses towritten discovery, including supplementation of responses,required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must bemade and by which all depositions must be concluded.Supplementation of disclosures must be concluded by thediscovery deadline.” L.U.Civ.R. 26(b)(1).Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that the Courtshall enter a scheduling order and it “may be modified onlyfor good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ.
LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFF v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5P. 16(b)(4). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) statesthat “[w]hen an act must be done within a specified time, thecourt may, for good cause, extend the time ... on motion madeafter the time has expired if the party failed to act because ofexcusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).Hill, proceeding pro se, filed the seven discovery motionsat issue from July 15, 2025 to August 19, 2025. All werefiled months too late and without following the pre-filingrequirements for discovery motions. None addressed theexcusable neglect or good cause factors. Hill filed all sevenMotions without first “contact[ing] the chambers of themagistrate judge to request a telephone conference with thejudge,” which is required by the Case Management Order.See Case Mgmt. Ord. [8] at 3. None of the seven Motionsare accompanied by a Form 4 Good Faith Certificate, whichis required by Local Rule 37(a). L.U.Civ.P. 37(a) (“A GoodFaith Certificate [Official Form No. 4] must be filed with alldiscovery motions.”); see Pace v. State Farm Fire & Cas.Co., No. 2:23-cv-19-HSO-BWR, 2024 WL 1655599, at *4(S.D. Miss. Jan. 11, 2024) (“This prerequisite is not an emptyformality.”). Hill moves for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure11 sanctions, but she did not satisfy Rule 11's safe harborrequirement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).“A party must file a discovery motion sufficiently in advanceof the discovery deadline to allow response to the motion,ruling by the court and time to effectuate the court's orderbefore the discovery deadline.” L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2)(C). “Theobvious purpose of Rule 7(b)(2)(C) is to resolve disputes overthe scope of discovery while time remains to conclude it.”Gipson v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 2018 WL 736265, at *6(S.D. Miss. Feb. 6, 2018). Hill's discovery Motions couldnot have been briefed, decided, and effectuated prior to thediscovery deadline because they were filed months after thediscovery deadline.If Hill wanted to depose witnesses, she had a deadline ofApril 1, 2025 to do so. If Hill believed that AAA's responsesto Requests for Production 1 and 2 were insufficient, thatAAA needed to supplement its disclosure and responses, orthat AAA's expert should be stricken because AAA made itsdisclosure one day late, her remedy was to first meet the pre-filing requirements for a discovery motion and then promptlyfile a motion to compel or a motion to strike sufficiently inadvance of the April 1, 2025 discovery deadline to allow timefor briefing, a ruling, and time to effectuate the ruling. Hill'sattempt to shift blame to opposing counsel does not workbecause*6 if the conduct of a respondentto discovery necessitates a motionto compel, the requester of thediscovery must protect himself bytimely proceeding with the motion forcompel. If he fails to do so, he acts athis own peril. He must not expect theCourt to extend discovery and/or thetrial date because of the failure of theother party to respond, even if that isin bad faith.Wells v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 203 F.R.D. 240, 241 (S.D.Miss. 2001).To the extent that Hill blames her withdrawn counsel fornot obtaining the discovery she now seeks, Hill voluntarilychose her attorneys and retained them through the discoveryperiod and until two weeks after the initial April 15, 2025dispositive and Daubert motions deadline. Civil litigants are“held accountable for the acts and omissions of their chosencounsel.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.,507 U.S. 380, 397 (1993). “[T]he client is responsible forchoosing h[er] lawyer and cannot claim inadequacies as anexcuse for failing to meet deadlines and duties imposedby law.” Superior Diving Co., Inc. v. Cortigene, 372 F.App'x 496, 497 (5th Cir. 2010). Hill consented to Anderson'swithdrawal, confirmed that the termination was mutual, andindicated that she would timely respond to AAA's Motion forSummary Judgment, which she did. Hill's dissatisfaction withher prior counsel is not excusable neglect or good cause.Discovery has been over for nearly five months. Nothingat the May 21, 2025 teleconference or included in theOrder allowing Hill's counsel to withdraw contemplatedreopening discovery. Order [51]. Resolution of AAA'sMotion for Summary Judgment has already been delayed,and the trial date continued, because Hill moved to amendher pleadings nine and a half months after the amendedpleadings deadline, and AAA did not oppose those requests.Dispositive and Daubert1 motions are now due againon September 19, 2025. Hill admits that her four newclaims “stem from the same transactions as the originalcomplaint.” Hill Aff. [70] at 1. Hill had from August 2024to April 1, 2025 to obtain discovery about those transactions.Hill has obtained discovery, including “the certified policy,
LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFF v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6Eberl Claims photo sheets, documents from United ClaimsSpecialists regarding Plaintiff's claim, claim denial letters,and correspondence from Auto Club to Plaintiff and/or toPlaintiff's representative.” Def.'s Resp. [134] at 2. Hill has“the claim file.” Id.As for the last excusable neglect factor, good faith, Hill'sis questionable. Hill's second discovery Motion [89] cites“Patterson v. Allstate, 2019 WL 1239855 (S.D. Miss. 2019)”and “Hazy v. Ford Motor Co., 2021 WL 2345678”). Pl.'s Mot.[89] at 2-3. The case “Hazy v. Ford Motor Co.” does notexist. The citation “2019 WL 1239855” is not the Westlawcitation for a case titled “Patterson v. Allstate” but the citationfor Holt v. Jefferson Co. Comm. For Econ. Opportunity, No.2:17-cv-00683-JHE, 2019 WL 1239855 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 18,2019), a Fair Labor Standards Act case that is not about claimsmanual discovery. Hill cites “Architex Ass'n v. Scottsdale Ins.,2022 WL 1234567,” a fictional citation. Pl.'s Mot. [89] at 2.The correct citation is Architex Ass'n, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins.Co., 27 So. 3d 1148 (Miss. 2010), and the opinion is not aboutclaims manual discovery.*7 In at least one other Motion, Hill cites cases that do notstand for the proposition for which she cites them. Hill cites“Canal Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 625 So. 2d 297 (Miss. 1993),”“Levens v. Campbell, 733 So. 2d 753 (Miss. 1999),” “Johnsonv. Preferred Risk Auto. Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1995),”and “Dunn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 927 F.2d 869 (5thCir. 1991)” for the argument that claims manuals are alwaysdiscoverable where bad faith is alleged. Pl.'s Mot. [94] at 5.“Canal Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 625 So. 2d 297 (Miss. 1993)”is a fictional citation. An opinion with that case name exists,but it is a 2010 Fifth Circuit opinion that is not about claimsmanual discovery. See Canal Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 625 F.3d244 (5th Cir. 2010). Hill has offered the correct citations forLevens, Johnson, and Dunn, but these opinions also are notabout claims manual discovery.The Court is concerned that what Hill has offered aslegal authority is the result of output from generativeartificial intelligence (AI), which is known to fabricatecase citations (so-called “hallucinations”). See Malone-Bey v.Lauderdale Cnty. Sch. Bd., No. 3:25-cv-380-KHJ-MTP, 2025WL 2098352, at *3 (S.D. Miss. July 25, 2025); Ferris v.Amazon.com Servs., LLC, 778 F. Supp. 3d 879, 882 (N.D.Miss. 2025). Hill is on notice that submitting documentscontaining AI hallucinations is sanctionable conduct, and prose litigants are not immune from being sanctioned for it.See Malone-Bey, 2025 WL 2098352, at *3 (warning pro seplaintiff that using fabricated citations may result in strickenfilings and monetary penalties); Ferris, 778 F. Supp. 3d at 882(ordering pro se plaintiff to pay opponent's reasonable costsand expenses incurred because of the plaintiff's “fake casecitations hallucinated by artificial intelligence”).Even if Hill did not use AI to assist with citing legalopinions and holdings, she still must comply with FederalRule of Civil Procedure 11. Malone-Bey, 2025 WL 2098352at *5. Rule 11 provides that “[b]y presenting to the court apleading, written motion, or other paper – whether by signing,filing, submitting, or later advocating it – an attorney orunrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person'sknowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiryreasonable under the circumstances ... the claims, defenses,and other legal contentions are warranted by existing lawor by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, orreversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed.R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). “[C]iting to fake legal opinions (orhallucinated legal holdings therein)” wastes “the Court'stime and judicial resources” and violates a party's Rule 11obligations. Malone-Bey, 2025 WL 2098352 at *5.Hill has made about 80 filings since May 1, 2025, the dateher counsel moved to withdraw. The filings are repetitiveand some contain scurrilous allegations. Some serve nodiscernable legal purpose, such as a document Hill filed titled,“Biblical Affidavit of Standing and Declaration of ScripturalRebuke.” Pl.'s Aff. [101]. From August 19 through 20, 2025,Hill filed thirteen motions. Seven late, procedurally improper,and repetitive discovery Motions are now before the Court.Hill is warned that “[a]lthough some latitude may be affordedto pro se plaintiffs who misunderstand the procedural natureof the law, pro se status is not a license to litter the docketsof the courts.” Demarsh v. Barlow, No. 4:07-cv-174, 2007WL 4368048, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2007); see Fargusonv. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986)(stating that pro se litigants have “no license” to “abusealready overloaded court dockets”). The Court possesses theinherent authority to sanction a party “for conduct whichabuses the judicial process” a power “necessarily vested incourts to manage their own affairs as to achieve the orderlyand expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO,501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Pro se litigants subject themselves“to the established rules of practice and procedure.” Birlv. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981). They areresponsible for meeting deadlines, complying with orders,
LATASHA HILL PLAINTIFF v. AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7and complying with the procedural and substantive rules ofthe Court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Local Uniform CivilRules.*8 The portion of Hill's third Motion [104] that concerns theexhibits attached to AAA's now-denied Motion for SummaryJudgment [27] is moot. Should these exhibits be refiledas attachments to AAA's renewed motion for summaryjudgment, due September 19, 2025, Hill can assert argumentsabout them in her response to AAA's renewed motion forsummary judgment. But the time for discovery and discoverymotions has long passed.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hill's discoveryMotions [88] [89] [104] [114] [115] [118] [119] are DENIED.SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of September 2025.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2663676Footnotes1See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).End of Document© 2025 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