Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Collier
, No. 3:25-cv-273 (S.D. Ohio 2026)
Case details
Full caption
Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Southern District of Ohio (S.D. OHIO)
Decided
2026
THE
UNITED
COURT
FOR
THE
OF
OHIO
WESTERN
DIVISION
AT
KETTERING
ADVENTIST
HEALTHCARE,
d/b/a
KETTERING
NETWORK,
Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant,
V.
SANDRA
e?5/.,
Defendants/Counter-
Plaintiffs,
V.
BECKER
&
PC,
et
al.,
Third-Party
Case
No.
3:25-cv-273
Judge
Walter
H.
Rice
Mag.
Judge
Caroline
ORDER
FINDING
THAT
MARY
SCOTT,
ESQ.,
H.
LEON
HEWITT,
ESQ.,
ARE
IN
OF
THIS
AND
VIOLATED
OF
CIVIL
PROCEDURE
11(b),
PURSUANT
TO
RULE
11(c),
IMPOSING
MONETARY
OF
$5,
000.
00
AGAINST
SCOTT
AND
$2,
500.
00
HEWITT,
TO
PAID
TO
OF
WITHIN
DAYS
OF
ENTRY;
REQUESTING
THE
CHIEF
JUDGE
OF
THE
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT
OF
OHIO
TO
SANCTION
FOR
IS
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
OF
SANDRA
COLLIER
SCOTT
(DOC.
IS
STRICKEN
PREJUDICE
TO
REFILING;
SHALL
MAKE
REPORT
TO
OF
OHIO
OFFICE
OF
DISCIPLINARY
COUNSEL;
NOTICE
OF
RECUSAL
AND
REQUEST
THAT
CHIEF
JUDGE
TO
JUDGE
IN
SOUTHERN
OF
OHIO
IN
CINCINNATI
COLUMBUS
SEAT
OF
COURT
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
1
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2089
STATES
DISTRICT
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT
DAYTON
HEALTH
COLLIER,
H.
Gentry
EPSTEIN
GREEN,
Defendants.
T.
AND
CONTEMPT
COURT
HAVE
FEDERAL
RULE
AND,
SANCTIONS
AGAINST
BE
THE
CLERK
COURT
THIRTY
(30)
DETERMINE
WHETHER
CONTEMPT
NECESSARY;
DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS
LEE
AND
#13)
WITHOUT
UNDERSIGNED
SUPREME
COURT
REASSIGN
CASE
ANOTHER
DISTRICT
THE
DISTRICT
THE
OR
On
January
2,
2026,
this
Court
issued
a
lengthy
Decision
and
Entry
detailing
more
than
a
dozen
fraudulent
citations
made
by
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Mary
T.
Scott,
both
pro
se
and
as
former
counsel
for
Plaintiff
Sandra
Lee
Collier,
and/or
by
H.
Lean
Hewitt,
current
counsel
for
Collier.
#113,
These
fraudulent
citations
were
made
by
Scott
in
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
Dismiss
(Doc.
#13)
and
Reply
in
support
of
same
(Doc.
signed
by
Scott
alone,
and
Collier
and
Scott's
memorandum
contra
the
Motion
to
Dismiss
ofThird-Party
Defendants
Epstein
Becker
&
Green
P.
James
Jill
Bigler,
and
Christopher
Page
McGinnis
(collectively
"EBG
Defendants").
(Memo.
in
Opp.,
Doc.
#93)
(collectively
"the
Filings").
From
its
review
of
the
citations,
the
Court
concluded
that
Scott
and
Hewitt
had
violated
Rule
11
's
requirement
that
an
attorney
signing
a
filing
"certif[y]
that
to
the
best
of
the
person's
knowledge,
information,
and
belief,
formed
after
an
inquiry
reasonable
under
the
circumstances!,
]
the
claims,
defenses,
and
other
legal
contentions
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.
11(b)(2).
The
Court
also
noted
that,
despite
being
put
on
notice
by
Plaintiff
Kettering
Adventist
d/b/a
Kettering
Health
Network
("Kettering")
on
15,
2025,
that
at
least
three
cited
cases
in
the
Motion
to
Dismiss
"did
not
state
what
Collier
and
Scott
represented
that
they
did.
Collier
and
Scott
cited
those
very
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
2
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2090
Esq.,
co-Defendant/Counter-
Esq.,
(Doc.
PAGEID
2020-26).
#69),
C.,
Petrie,
P.
Healthcare,
September
same
cases
for
the
very
same
propositions
of
law
in
their
later
Reply.
"
#113,
PAGEID
citing
Kettering
Memo.
in
PAGEID
1215,
1218,
1220,
nn.
7,
Finally,
despite
Scott
and
Hewitt
having
been
on
notice
for
more
three
months
and
one
month,
respectively,
that
they
had
submitted
phantom
wholly
inaccurate
citations,
neither
Scott
nor
Hewitt
acknowledged
their
The
Court
that,
by
failing
to
do
so,
Scott
and
had
violated
Ohio
Rule
of
Professional
Conduct
3.
3.
(Id.
at
PAGEID
In
light
of
the
the
Court
ordered
Scott
and
Hewitt
to
show
no
later
than
January
why
they
should
not
be
sanctioned
for
violating
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
(b)
and
not
be
held
in
contempt
of
this
and
why
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
Dismiss
should
not
be
overruled
with
prejudice
as
PAGEID
2035-36).
The
Court
further
indicated
that,
upon
resolution
of
the
Show
the
would
refer
Scott
and
Hewitt
to
the
appropriate
disciplinary
committee
and
himself
further
proceedings.
(Id.
at
2036).
On
January
15,
Scott
filed
her
Response,
stating
that
she
used
artificial
intelligence
("Al")
in
"for
preliminary
case
identification.
At
the
time,
I
mistakenly
believed
those
tools
were
sufficiently
reliable
for
that
limited
purpose.
.
..
of
the
toot
used,
the
duty
to
verify
citations
rests
entirely
with
counsel.
I
failed
to
satisfy
that
duty
here.
"
(Scott
Resp.,
PAGEID
2039).
She
also
that
made
her
aware
of
several
inaccurate
citations,
but
that
she
did
not
"pause,
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
3
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2091
(Doc.
2026,
Opp.,
Doc.
#44,
9-10).
than
or
transgressions.
concluded
Hewitt
(a)(1).
2026-27)
above,
cause,
16,
2026,
11
Court,
sanction.
(Doc.
#113,
Cause
Order,
undersigned
recuse
from
PAGEID
2026,
generative
research
Regardless
Doc.
#114,
concedes
Kettering
reassess,
and
independently
verify
the
authority
before
filing
again"
using
those
citations,
commonly
known
as
"Al
"
in
Collier
and
Scott's
Reply.
(Id.
}.
She
acknowledges
that,
even
though
she
did
not
fabricate
factual
her
failure
to
acknowledge
and
correct
the
Al-hallucinated
citations
in
the
violated
her
duty
of
candor.
{Id.
at
2039-40).
On
January
16,
Hewitt
filed
his
Response,
conceding
that,
although
"I
joined
the
case
late,
[I]
failed
to
independently
verify
the
presented
case
citations,
and
that
failure
fell
below
the
standards
of
integrity,
diligence,
and
owed
to
this
Court.
"
(Hewitt
Doc.
#117,
He
states
that
fabricated
citations
were
drafted
by
Scott,
but
that
he
erred
in
relying
on
citations
without
verification
before
appending
his
name
to
the
memorandum
contra
the
EBG
Defendants'
Motion
to
Dismiss,
{/d.
at
PAGEID
remediation,
Hewitt
intends
to
engage
"additional
experienced
litigators
for
independent
review
where
"
(Id.
at
PAGEID
2047).
While
Hewitt
and
Scott
were
making
timely
and
contrite
filings
to
the
Court,
including
intended
affirmative
steps
to
future
errors
(Doc.
PAGEID
2040;
Doc.
#117,
PAGEID
2047),
the
omnibus
case
was
set
for
mediation
before
Magistrate
Judge
Silvain,
Jr.,
on
January
28,
2026.
Judge
Order,
Doc.
#119,
2056).
1
On
January
21,
just
days
after
promising
1
Judge
Silvain,
"with
recognition
of
the
of
the
proceedings,
.
..
direct[ed]
that
this
Order
be
filed
under
seal.
"
#119,
However,
Judge
Silvain
correctly
that
the
"possible
for
misconduct"
to
this
Court's
local
rule
on
nondisclosure
of
mediation
statements
applies
(id.,
quoting
S.
D.
OHIO
Civ.
R.
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
4
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2092
fabricated
hallucinations,
assertions,
Filings
PAGEID
2026,
law
care
Resp.,
PAGEID
2046).
the
those
2046-47).
As
appropriate.
prevent
#114,
Peter
B.
(Mag.
PAGEID
2026,
the
Magistrate
sensitive
nature
mediation
(Doc.
PAGEID
2058).
Magistrate
determined
sanctions
exception
undersigned
that
they
would
take
affirmative
to
that
all
citations
in
future
filings
would
be
Hewitt
and
Scott
submitted
mediation
statements
to
Magistrate
Judge
Silvain
on
behalf
of
Collier
and
Scott
respectively.
#119,
Those
statements
were
rife
with
"patent
misstatements
and
mischaracterizationsofthe
"
(Id.
}.
Consequently,
Judge
canceled
the
and
referred
the
to
the
undersigned
for
further
(Id.
at
PAGEID
2071-72).
The
breadth
and
depth
of
Scott
and
Hewitt's
continued
malfeasance
leave
the
Court
almost
at
a
loss
for
words.
The
undersigned
expresses
his
deep
appreciation
for
Judge
Silvain's
exhaustive
of
Scott
and
Hewitt's
in
their
mediation
PAGEID
2059-71),
that
discussion
by
and
the
discussion
of
their
citations
as
follows:
Hewitt:
Two
that
do
not
exist
in
the
citation
formats
provided
by
Hewitt;
(2)
Three
that
are
"completely
to
[Hewitt's]
relevant
]"
and
in
no
way
stand
for
for
which
he
cites
them;
and
(3)
Eight
cases
that,
as
cited
by
Hewitt,
"exaggerate[]
or
misappl[y]
the
law
throughout
[Collier's]
mediation
statement.
"
(Doc.
#119,
PAGEID
2059-67).
Scott:
Four
unrelated
or
contrary
to
the
propositions
for
which
she
cites
them;
and
(2)
Five
cases
for
which
Scott
misstates
the
law.
#119,
2067-71).
in
its
January
2,
2026,
the
observed
that
and
Scott
had
relied
on
v.
Prem.
Ins.
Co.
for
the
proposition
16.
3(c)(3)(C)),
and
the
is
that
the
of
Al
by
attorneys
public
the
DIRECTS
the
of
Court
to
the
Order
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
5
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2093
steps
ensure
accurate,
herself,
(Doc.
PAGEID
2058).
law.
Magistrate
Silvain
mediation
matter
back
proceedings.
Magistrate
discussion
misrepresentations
statements
(Doc.
#119,
incorporates
reference,
summarizes
(1)
cases
cases
unrelated
assertions[,
the
propositions
(1)
cases
(Doc.
PAGEID
Notably,
Decision,
Court
Collier
Kenty
Transamerica
that
undersigned
convinced
magnitude
misuse
requires
disclosure.
Accordingly,
Court
Clerk
unseal
"[wjhere
claims
are
based
on
enforceable
legal
rights,
settlement
demands
privileged.
"
(Doc.
PAGEID
2024,
quoting
Kenty,
Ohio
3d
415,
419
Collier
and
Scott
Motion
to
Dismiss,
Doc.
#13,
However,
Court
further
noted
that
"nothing
the
purported
quoted
by
Collier
and
Scott
appears
in"
(/d).
Incredibly,
despite
this
admonition
from
the
Court,
Scott
cited
Kenfyfor
that
very
same
proposition
in
her
mediation
statement.
(Doc.
#119,
PAGEID
2068).
Magistrate
Judge
Silvain's
Order
the
Court's
previous
conclusion:
that
Scott
and
Hewitt's
fabricated
citations
constitute
the
most
inexplicable,
and
violations
of
11(b)
by
any
attorneys
that
have
ever
before
the
PAGEID
2027-28).
despite
multiple
opportunities
since
Kettering
filed
its
contra
on
September
15,
for
Scott
and
Hewitt
to
acknowledge
their
it
took
a
lengthy
investigation
and
decision
by
the
Court
before
they
did
so.
and
worst
of
all,
at
the
very
time
Scott
and
Hewitt
were
promising
the
that
they
would
not
fabricate
the
law,
they
were
doing
just
that
in
this
very
to
the
In
sum,
Scott
and
Hewitt's
Responses
reinforce
the
Court's
conclusion
that
they
violated
both
11(b)(2)
and
Ohio
of
Conduct
3.
3.
(a)(1),
and
that
the
Court
is
warranted
in
imposing
sanctions
against
Scott
and
Hewitt.
FED.
R.
CIV.
Also,
Scott
and
Hewitt's
misrepresentations
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
6
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2094
are
#113,
72
St.
(1995);
PAGEID
510).
the
resembling
language
Kenty.
reinforces
egregious,
repeated
Rule
appeared
undersigned.
(Doc.
#113,
Moreover,
memorandum
2025,
transgressions,
subsequent
Finally,
perhaps
undersigned
cases
or
misstate
case
undersigned's
colleague.
Rule
Rule
Professional
P.
11(c)(1).
to
Judge
Silvain
the
to
find
Scott
and
in
contempt
of
this
"The
court
has
available
a
variety
of
sanctions
to
impose
violations,
such
as
striking
the
offending
issuing
an
admonition,
reprimand,
or
requiring
participation
in
or
other
educational
programs;
ordering
a
fine
to
the
court;
referring
the
matter
to
authorities!.
]"
FED.
R.
CIV.
11
advisory
cmte.
note
to
1993am.
The
that
overruling
with
prejudice
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
Dismiss
as
previously
2035-36),
while
severe,
is
still
"limited
to
what
suffices
to
deter
repetition
of
the
conduct
or
conductby
others
similarly
situated.
"
FED.
R.
CIV.
P.
11(c)(4).
such
sanction
would
prejudice
Collier,
who
should
not
be
the
Court
orders
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
Dismiss
stricken
without
prejudice
to
refiling
before
the
successor
judge
with
accurate
The
imposition
of
sanctions
for
of
generative
Al
is
relatively
new;
for
Mata
v.
Inc.,
one
of
the
first
significant
federal
on
the
was
not
published
until
June
22,
2023.
678
F.
Supp.
443
(S.
D.
N.
2023).
Westlaw
lists
Mata
as
having
cited
in
^05
since
then,
reflects
the
proliferation
of
generative
Al,
its
infiltration
into
writing,
and
its
by
The
Mata
court
aptly
explains
the
harm
perpetrated
by
Scott
and
Hewitt,
and
why
sanctions
are
appropriate:
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
7
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2095
Magistrate
compel
undersigned
Hewitt
Court.
possible
for
paper;
censure;
seminars
payable
[and/or]
disciplinary
P.
Court
concludes
(Doc.
#13),
contemplated
(Doc.
#113,
PAGEID
comparable
However,
penalized.
Thus,
citations.
misuse
instance,
Avianca,
cases
topic,
3d
Y.
However,
been
cases
which
legal
repeated
misuse
attorneys.
Many
harms
flow
from
the
submission
of
fake
opinions.
The
opposing
party
wastes
time
and
money
in
exposing
the
deception.
The
Court's
time
is
taken
from
other
important
endeavors.
The
may
be
deprived
of
arguments
on
authentic
There
is
potential
harm
to
the
reputation
of
judges
and
courts
whose
names
are
falsely
invoked
as
authors
of
the
opinions
and
to
the
reputation
of
a
party
attributed
with
conduct.
It
promotes
cynicism
about
the
and
the
American
judicial
And
a
future
litigant
may
be
tempted
to
defy
a
judicial
ruling
by
disingenuously
claiming
doubt
about
its
authenticity.
678
F.
Supp.
3d
at
(footnote
The
court
in
Wac/swoth
v.
Walmart,
in
imposing
monetary
sanctions
against
the
attorneys
who
submitted
Al-hallucinated
noted
that,
by
24,
the
date
of
publication,
"[i]t
is
..
.
well-known
in
the
community
that
Al
fake
cases.
"
348
F.
R.
(D.
Wyo.
2025).
As
evidenced
by
in
61
cases
by
the
time
and
Scott
filed
the
Motion
to
Dismiss
in
August
every
licensed
attorney
knew
should
have
known
that
relying
on
Al
for
likely
in
a
filing
Al
of
subsequent
citing
Mata
and
Wadsworth
reinforce
this
Court's
that
the
of
is
rapidly
and
is
one
of
the
facing
civil
the
January
2026,
Decision
that
the
expectation
of
accurate
citations
has
no
exception
for
generative
Al.
have
monetary
sanctions
for
filing
Al-
hallucinated
citations
ranging
$1,
000
and
$5,
F.
R.
D.
8
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
8
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2096
client
based
judicial
precedents.
bogus
fictional
legal
profession
system.
448-49
omitted).
caselaw,
February
2025,
legal
resources
generate
D.
489,
497
Wadsworth
being
cited
since
publication,
Collier
2025,
or
reasonably
generative
research
would
result
containing
hallucinations.
The
volume
cases
conclusion:
problem
attorneys
submitting
hallucinated
citations
worsening,
biggest
threats
currently
federal
litigation.
Importantly,
2,
made
clear
Court's
Courts
imposed
attorneys
between
000.
Wadsworth,
348
at
cases),
In
imposing
$3,
000
and
$1,
000
fines
on
the
and
co-signing
attorneys,
the
court
that
both
attorneys
were
"forthcoming,
and
apologetic
about
their
They
also
took
steps
to
the
situation
prior
to
the
potential
sanctions!.
]"
However,
the
attorneys
were
also
"attorneys
at
a
prominent
national
law
firm
with
presumably
deep
resources"
and
access
to
Lexis
Westlaw.
For
the
drafting
the
court
also
"the
number
of
in
the
filing
to
real
cases"
and
"the
fact
on
of
Al's
issues
in
cases
quite
some
time.
"
Id.
at
498.
As
discussed
in
the
Court's
January
2,
Decision,
Scott
cited
at
least
twelve
cases
that
either
do
not
exist
or
do
not
remotely
stand
for
the
purported
of
law.
(Doc.
PAGEID
2021-26).
The
volume
of
fabricated
citations
rendered
the
Court
unable
to
discern
"whether
[any
of
the
cited
by
Collier
and
Scott]
exist
at
all
and
have
any
relevance
whatsoever
to
the
argument
Collier
and
Scott
are
making.
"
[Id.
at
PAGEID
2029).
Nothing
in
Scott's
response
causes
the
Court
to
alter
this
conclusion.
Moreover,
unlike
in
Wadsworth,
Scott
did
not
notify
the
Court
of
her
errors
prior
to
the
of
the
Show
Cause
it
that,
after
being
notified
by
of
the
nonexistent
or
inaccurate
citations
in
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
Dismiss,
Scott
recited
at
least
three
fabricated
citations
for
the
exact
same
incorrect
propositions
in
their
PAGEID
2026).
and
most
importantly,
Scott
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
9
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2097
497
(collecting
498.
drafting
respectively,
i/yacfsworth
noted
honest,
conduct.
remediate
issuance
of
or
Id.
attorney,
considered
hallucinated
cases
compared
that
attorneys
have
been
notice
generative
hallucinating
for
2026,
propositions
#113,
cases
issuance
Order.
Rather,
bears
repeating
even
Kettering
Reply.
(Doc.
#113,
Finally,
now
the
law
four
times-b\/
the
EBG
Defendants,
the
and
Judge
Silvain,
case
that
is
barely
six
months
though
neither
nor
the
EBG
Defendants
specifically
moved
for
sanctions
with
to
Scott
and
Hewitt's
fabrications
and
misstate
nts,
among
the
"harms
that
flow
the
submission
of
fake
opinions"
is
that
"[t]he
Court's
time
is
taken
from
endeavors."
Wadsworth,
348
F.
R.
at
498
(internal
quotation
omitted),
quoting
Mata,
678
F.
Supp.
at
448;
see
Mezu
Mezu,
267
Md.
354,
370
(Md.
Ct.
App.
2025)
(Counsel
fake
opinions
"also
this
to
time
to
try
to
find
the
cases
in
party's]
research
how
other
courts
have
dealt
with
situations
involving
similar
attorney
resources
pressing
work.
").
Since
November
13,
2025,
when
the
EBG
filed
their
reply
memorandum
detailing
Scott
and
misconduct
#97),
the
Court
has
spent
in
excess
of
seventy-five
addressing
this
specific
issue.
In
the
factors
in
this
case
in
of
a
sanction
at
the
top
of
the
range
discussed
in
Wadsworth.
Thus,
the
a
of
$5,
to
the
Clerk
of
Court
within
thirty
days
of
In
a
fine
of
$1,
against
the
the
Wadsworth
court
that,
he
was
significantly
less
than
the
drafting
attorney,
the
co-signing
attorney
still
Rule
11
by
the
filing
with
10
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
10
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2098
has
been
caught
misstating
Kettering,
undersigned,
Magistrate
respectively-in a
old
Finally,
even
Kettering
respect
me
from
other
important
D.
marks
3d
also
v.
App.
submitting
required
Court
take
fake
cited
[the
brief,
and
then
misconduct,
diverting
judicial
from
other
Defendants
Hewitt's
(Doc.
hours
sum,
weigh
favor
imposing
end
Court
imposes
monetary
sanction
000
against
Scott,
payable
(30)
entry.
imposing
000
co-signing
attorney,
noted
although
culpable
violated
signing
fabricated
citations.
348
F.
R.
D.
at
498.
The
court
further
concluded
that
the
attorney
his
"nondelegable
duty
to
ensure
a
is
supported
by
law.
"
Id.
Here,
not
appeared
in
the
case
Scott
filed
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
Dismiss
and
Reply
memorandum
containing
hallucinated
citations.
Nonetheless,
had
he
read
Kettering's
memorandum
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
while
getting
up
to
he
would
found
about
the
and
could
and
the
Court.
At
the
least,
would
have
known
to
check
the
cases
by
Scott
carefully
before
the
memorandum
EBG
Defendants'
to
Dismiss
(Doc.
by
signing
without
doing
Hewitt
violated
both
Rule
11
and
his
duty
to
Collier-a
client
who,
unlike
the
co-signing
attorney
in
he
independently
of
the
drafting
Scott.
Moreover,
Hewitt
also
did
not
inform
the
Court
of
his
transgression
prior
to
Court's
January
2,
representations
to
the
on
January
16,
2026
and
despite
the
importance
of
the
mediation
to
resolving
the
case
for
Collier,
Hewitt
could
not
even
be
bothered
to
check
whether
the
cases
he
cited
existed,
much
less
whether
his
citations
were
Accordingly,
Court
imposes
a
sanction
of
$2,
500,
payable
to
the
Clerk
of
Court
within
thirty
(30)
of
entry.
combined
sanction
of
$7,
500-$100
that
the
this
issue-is
than
reasonable
to
address
the
harm
and
resultant
reallocation
of
judicial
11
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
11
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2099
co-
signing
violated
motion
existing
Hewitt
had
when
the
contra
speed,
have
out
phantom
citations
have
alerted
Scott
very
he
cited
signing
contrathe
Motion
#93);
so,
nondelegable
Wadsworth,
represented
attorney,
the
2026,
Decision.
Finally,
despite
Hewitt's
Court
(Doc.
#117),
statement
accurate.
the
days
The
amount
per
hour
Court
spent
addressing
more
resources.
As
discussed
the
Rules
Advisory
contemplated
"referring
matter
to
disciplinary
authorities"
a
sanction
for
violating
Rule
11.
FED.
R.
CIV.
P.
11
to
Scott
and
Responses
to
the
Show
Cause
do
to
the
Court's
previous
conclusion:
that
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
in
support
of
and
memorandum
contrathe
Defendants'
Motion
to
Dismiss
constitute
the
egregious
violations
of
Rule
11
the
undersigned
has
seen
in
forty-six
years
on
the
bench.
Scott
and
failure
to
notify
the
the
fabricated
citations
once
Kettering
and
the
EBG
them
aware
constitutes
a
clear
violation
of
Ohio
of
3.
3.
(a)(1).
Finally,
Scott
and
Hewitt's
misrepresentations
to
Magistrate
Judge
Silvain-less
than
three
weeks
after
the
Court's
January
2,
Decision-raise
concerns
as
to
whether
either
Scott
or
Hewitt
should
remain
active
members
in
good
standing
in
the
bar
of
Court
and
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Ohio.
2
Given
that
the
State
of
exercises
plenary
oversight
of
the
professional
conduct
of
2
Indeed,
February
10,
2018,
Scott
filed
a
Notice
of
Supplemental
Authority,
purportedly
"identifying
controlling
authority
supporting
the
legal
propositions
already
pleaded[.
]"
(Doc.
#118,
PAGEID
2049).
However,
several
of
cases
cited
therein
at
PAGEID
2050-54)
are
exact
same
cases
cited
Scott
or
Hewitt
in
their
mediation
statements,
and
that
the
Magistrate
Judge
correctly
concluded
were
misstatements
of
law.
Even
if
citations
had
been
accurate,
however,
of
Notice-nearly
five
months
Kettering
warned
Scott
and
Collier
about
the
improper
citations
in
Motion
to
Dismiss-would
have
been
too
little,
too
late.
Additionally,
as
the
instant
Order
was
being
finalized,
Kettering
filed
a
Notice
(Doc.
#120)
and
supporting
documentation
(Doc.
#120-1)
that
raise
serious
concerns
as
to
whether
Scott
has
continued
to
facto
represent
Collier
in
violation
of
this
Court's
September
19,
2025,
Disqualification
Order.
(Tr.,
Doc.
#63).
Notice,
Kettering
further
asserts
that
Scott
made
numerous
false
representations
of
and
misrepresented
propositions
of
law.
at
PAGEID
2076-78
(citations
omitted)).
Judge
Kettering's
any
response
made
Scott
in
evaluating
whether
further
sanction
for
contempt
of
court
is
warranted.
12
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
12
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2100
above,
Committee
has
long
the
as
advisory
cmte.
note
1993am.
Hewitt's
Order
nothing
alter
Dismiss,
Reply
same,
EBG
most
his
federal
Moreover,
Hewitt's
tribunal
of
Defendants
made
Rule
Professional
Conduct
2026,
grave
this
Ohio
on
the
(id.
the
by
the
all
the
timing
the
after
their
de
In
its
fact
[Id.
The
Chief
may
consider
Notice
and
by
attorneys
admitted
in
OHIO
R.
PROF.
COND.
8.
5(a),
the
undersigned
concludes
that
the
Supreme
Court
of
Office
of
Disciplinary
Counsel
("ODC")
is
best-
equipped
to
handle
violations
of
Ohio
rules.
Consequently,
the
Court
will
refer
Scott
and
Hewitt's
conduct
to
the
ODC.
For
the
reasons,
and
Hewitt
ARE
FOUND
to
be
in
contempt
of
this
Court
and
FOUND
to
have
violated
Rule
11
Pursuant
to
11
(c),
Collier
and
Scott's
Motion
to
Dismiss
#13)
is
PREJUDICE
to
is
ASSESSED
a
monetary
sanction
of
$5,
000,
and
is
ASSESSED
a
monetary
sanction
of
$2,
500,
payable
to
the
Clerk
of
within
THIRTY
(30)
days
of
REQUESTS
that
the
Chief
for
the
Southern
District
of
determine
whether
sanction
for
contempt
of
Court
is
necessary
beyond
what
the
undersigned
Rule
11.
Court
shall
the
ODC
of
Scott
and
Hewitt's
conduct
letter,
enclosing
copies
of:
(a)
the
2026,
Decision;
(b)
Magistrate
February
19,
2026,
Order;
and
(c)
the
instant
Order
undersigned
hereby
RECUSES
proceedings
in
this
The
undersigned
further
REQUESTS
that
the
Judge
reassign
the
captioned
case
to
another
District
within
the
Southern
District
of
Ohio
in
the
Cincinnati
or
Columbus
seat
of
court.3
3
February
24,
2026,
Kettering
filed
a
for
Status
Conference
to
address,
among
issues,
"[t]he
of
this
Court's
reassignment
of
this
matter
to
another
District
Judge."
(Doc.
#121,
PAGEID
2086).
The
undersigned
concludes
that
Motion
is
best
addressed
by
the
successor
judge.
13
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
13
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2101
Ohio,
Ohio's
the
foregoing
Scott
ARE
(b).
Rule
(Doc.
STRICKEN
WITHOUT
refiling,
Scott
Hewitt
both
Court
entry.
The
Court
Judge
Ohio
under
The
notify
via
January
2,
Judge
Silvain's
The
himself
from
further
matter.
Chief
Judge
On
Motion
Video
other
timing
the
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED
February
25,
^r
i^
^
WALTER
RICE,
UNITED
COURT
14
Case:
3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG
Doc
#:
122
Filed:
02/25/26
Page:
14
of
14
PAGEID
#:
2102
LJ"
H.
JUDGE
2026
STATES
DISTRICT
Provenance
Know 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