| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories |
Summary |
|
| D. Nev. – Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey | 8/11/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Chavez-Deremer v. NAB, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154092 (D. Nev. Aug. 11, 2025), one of the pro se defendants included at least one hallucinated case in her brief in support of her motion to stay execution of a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). Judge Dorsey reminded the parties that while GenAI is permitted in this court, any filing party violates the rule requiring them to certify that their claims and legal assertions are supported by existing law if they cite hallucinated cases. While the court declined to sanction the pro se defendant, Judge Dorsey warned of “consequences, including sanctions” for the continued use of hallucinated authority in future briefings. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Research | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| D. Nev. -- Judge Christina D. Silve | 4/23/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78049 (D. Nev., Apr. 23, 2025), the Court denied the pro se plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s prior grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice (because the pro se plaintiff failed to adhere to an order regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8). Along with other misconduct, the Court found that the plaintiff’s “use of AI generated cases—and his subsequent refusal to accept responsibility for doing so—is just another example of [his] abusive litigation tactics.” The Court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration of the prior dismissal, observing that, if it was only the AI misuse, it “may have been willing to merely warn” the pro se plaintiff, but the plaintiff’s “refusal to accept responsibility,” along with other misconduct, warranted the dismissal with prejudice. |
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| Court-Imposed Consequences – Parties | ||||
| D.C. NV – Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III | 8/8/2024 | Any AI | Any AI | Judge Couvillier issued a Standing Order requiring “counsel or pro se parties” to identify any AI used in “any brief, pleading, or other document submitted to the Court” in the filing’s “title or pleading caption.” This applies to any filing that is created or drafted using “any [AI] tool,” with a reminder from the Court that use of such tools must be consistent with “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, this Standing Order, and any other applicable legal or ethical guidelines.” The Order further notes that failure to verify the accuracy or existence of AI-generated citations of law or fact is sanctionable. |
| Requires Disclosure and/or Verification | ||||
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Nevada
Jump to:
