Jean v. Seattle Credit Union, No. 2:25-cv-02140-LK (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
REBECCA JEAN, Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE CREDIT UNION, Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 2049419Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, W.D. Washington.REBECCA JEAN, Plaintiff,v.SEATTLE CREDIT UNION, Defendant.CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02140-LK|07/15/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsRebecca Jean, Seattle, WA, Pro Se.Benjamin J. Stone, Kaytlin Leigh Carlson, Lewis BrisboisBisgaard & Smith LLP, Seattle, WA, Christopher E. Hawk,Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Portland, OR, forDefendant.MINUTE ORDER*1 The following Minute Order is made by direction ofthe Court, the Honorable Lauren King, United States DistrictJudge:In light of Plaintiff Rebecca Jean's response and declaration,Dkt. Nos. 41–42, acknowledging previous proceduralviolations, averring that the factual allegations in heramended complaint are not the product of generative AI,and committing to abide by applicable law and verify thatall citations refer to legitimate legal authority, the Courtdischarges its order to show cause with an order strikingJean's error-laden response brief, Dkt. No. 34, and requiringher to include in all future correspondence with opposingcounsel (including discovery responses) and in all futurefilings with the Court a declaration, made under penaltyof perjury, addressing whether generative AI was used,disclosing the name of the tool used, and certifying that shehas personally reviewed the correspondence or filing and thatall citations and quotations therein refer to existing authority,and any factual assertions therein are supported by adequatefoundation (e.g., personal knowledge or evidentiary support);provided, however, that the Court maintains the stay in thiscase until it is satisfied that Jean will comply with the rulesrequiring her to meet and confer with Seattle Credit Union onits motion for a protective order.The Court cautions that it does not find credible Jean'sexplanations regarding the nonexistent authority cited in herresponse brief, and it expects her to specifically identifyany AI tool she uses to draft her filings in the future. It isnot sufficient to simply state, as Jean did in her responseto the Order to Show Cause, that she used “the followinggenerative AI,” and then state “Microsoft Word to hand-typemy response, and Google for research.” Dkt. No. 41 at 9.If Jean uses AI, she must identify the AI tool; for example,CoPilot in Microsoft Word, the “AI Overview” generated inGoogle searches, or Google Gemini. Furthermore, the Courtwill impose severe sanctions—up to and including dismissal—if it discovers hallucinated cases or nonexistent quotesin future filings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 41(b); LCR 11(c);Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829,831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).Furthermore, Jean's “redlined” version of her secondamended complaint, Dkt. No. 43-1, is not actually redlined.True redlines reflect deletions and additions, LCR 15, andJean's “redlines” show only deletions; any future redlineddocuments should be produced by the Microsoft Wordredline tool or a similar software feature to ensure accuracy.However, because Jean's second amended complaint, Dkt.No. 43, is substantively identical to her first amendedcomplaint, Dkt. No. 26, except for her updated address andher certification regarding the use of generative AI, the Courtwill accept the second amended complaint as the operativecomplaint.Finally, in accordance with the Court's prior minute order,Dkt. No. 38, the Court will not entertain any surreply-style arguments against Seattle Credit Union's motion for aprotective order contained in Jean's response to the Order toShow Cause, see, e.g., Dkt. No. 41 at 5–6.*2 Because Jean failed to meaningfully meet and conferwith Seattle Credit Union regarding her discovery requests,see Dkt. No. 39 at 2–3, the Court ORDERS the parties tomeet and confer within 21 days of the date of this Orderregarding Jean's discovery requests and attempt in “goodfaith...to attempt to resolve the matter in dispute withoutthe court's involvement” while exercising “a high degree ofprofessionalism and collegiality[.]” LCR 1(c)(6). “A goodfaith effort to confer requires a face-to-face meeting or atelephone conference.” LCR 26(c)(1). The Court will impose
REBECCA JEAN, Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE CREDIT UNION, Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2sanctions for any continued failure to comply with these rules.Following the parties’ meet and confer, they must providea joint status report detailing the outcome of the meet andconfer and indicating whether any portions of Seattle CreditUnion's motion for a protective order are mooted. The statusreport is due by August 12, 2026. Aside from the above meetand confer and joint status report requirements, the Courtmaintains the stay in this case.Dated this 15th day of July, 2026.Joshua LewisClerk/s/Natalie WoodDeputy ClerkAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 2049419End 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