| Court - Judge Name | Applicable To | Categories | ||
| D. Utah – Judge Ann Marie Mciff Allen | 11/5/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Logan v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219059 (D. Utah Nov. 5, 2025), the court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to strike pro se plaintiff’s opposition, which the defendant alleged “was generated by artificial intelligence.” Although the court denied the motion to strike because the opposition brief “is not a pleading,” and thus the court lacks authority to strike it, the court noted its “serious concerns” about potentially “AI-hallucinated case quotations” and warned the pro se plaintiff to “refrain from any improper use of AI in the course of this litigation.” The court further stated that any decision as to whether sanctions are appropriate for misuse of AI could be handled through a Rule 11 motion for sanctions. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting | ||||
| D. Utah -- Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett | 5/30/2025 | Generative AI | Generative AI Usage | In Andersen v. Olympus at Daybreak, 2025 WL 1547065 (D. Utah May 30, 2025), the court denied a pro se plaintiff’s motion for alternative service that included citations to cases that the court was “unable to locate,” which the court noted “calls into question [plaintiff’s] compliance with” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Although the court did not specifically mention “artificial intelligence,” the court noted that the plaintiff had previously submitted a motion containing a quotation from a non-existent case, prompting Chief Judge Shelby to express “‘serious concerns about the resources [plaintiff] consulted when drafting his materials,’” and to warn that further misquotations would result in Rule 11 sanctions. Magistrate Judge Bennett echoed these concerns and emphasized that further such conduct would result in sanctions. |
| Suggests Cautious Use of AI | ||||
| Applies to AI Used for Filings/Drafting |
Utah
Jump to:
