Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc.
Delaware Court of Chancery · Del. Ch. · Delaware bar guidance
Conduct
A self-represented petitioner's motion to compel miscited cases and attributed quotations to Delaware decisions that do not contain them; the court suspected GenAI.
Consequence
Here the court denied the motion with prejudice and warned without sanctioning; a separate order requires a sworn certification on any future GenAI-prepared filings in the case.
Lesson
Here the court said it would have been inclined to deny without prejudice had the petitioner been forthright; he doubled down instead, and the denial was with prejudice.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025) (Will, V.C.) (letter opinion); id. (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025) (Order Requiring Certification on Use of Generative AI)
- Decided
- April 4, 2025
Summary
Self-represented petitioner Daniel Jaiyong An moved to compel discovery from Archblock, Inc. (Dkt. 25). In an April 4, 2025 letter opinion, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will found "several incorrect citations to case law in the Motion." The motion cited Terramar Retail Centers, LLC v. Marion #2-Seaport Trust for the court's broad discretion in discovery disputes, but Terramar addressed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss and did not involve discovery. It attributed the quote "A party cannot unilaterally decide to stay discovery" to Deutsch v. ZST Digital Networks, which concerned a receiver's request for an arrest warrant, and attributed "Delaware courts have traditionally construed the scope of permissible discovery liberally" to Production Resources Group, LLC v. NCT Group. Westlaw searches for both quotes returned only the petitioner's motion, and when the Vice Chancellor prompted ChatGPT to find a Delaware decision with the Deutsch quote, it pointed her to Terramar. "Based on these miscites," she wrote, "I suspect that the petitioner used generative artificial intelligence . . . to prepare his Motion." In reply, the petitioner "doubled down," in the court's words, maintaining that although some of the quoted language was "paraphrased rather than verbatim," the principles from the cited cases were "directly relevant and on point"; the court responded, "That is untrue."
- AI tool:
- Suspected generative AI, tool not identified (the letter opinion says "I suspect that the petitioner used generative artificial intelligence"; the accompanying Order says the false citations were "presumably due to his use of generative artificial intelligence")
What did the court warn about?
The letter opinion denied the motion with prejudice, stating that the court "would have been inclined to deny the Motion without prejudice if the petitioner had been forthright." It stated that "[t]he petitioner's submission of a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable" but that "I am not sanctioning the petitioner today," warned that future filings must be truthful, accurate, and cite legitimate authorities, and said noncompliance "may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, stricken filings, or the dismissal of this suit." A separate Order Requiring Certification on Use of Generative AI entered the same day (Dkt. 39), which the letter opinion says is based on Judge Brennan's order in Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A. (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2025), requires that any future filing by the petitioner prepared using GenAI be accompanied by a sworn certification confirming GenAI was used, identifying the tool, identifying the GenAI-created portions, and confirming human review of accuracy, including that each cited authority exists and supports its proposition. The Order provides that failure to comply "may lead to the issuance of sanctions." The letter opinion concludes: "Similar misconduct by the petitioner in the future will yield sanctions."
Why does Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
An v. Archblock is a Court of Chancery letter opinion in which Vice Chancellor Will traced a self-represented petitioner’s discovery motion to miscited and misquoted Delaware decisions and inferred, as a suspicion, that generative AI had been used. The opinion documents her own verification: each quoted sentence she could not find in the cited case returned only the petitioner’s motion on a Westlaw “All State & Federal” search, and a ChatGPT prompt for the Deutsch quote pointed her to Terramar, another case the motion had miscited.
The outcome turned on the petitioner’s response. The letter opinion acknowledges the latitude Delaware judges give self-represented litigants and says the court “would have been inclined to deny the Motion without prejudice if the petitioner had been forthright.” Instead, the petitioner doubled down: his reply conceded only that some quoted language was paraphrased and insisted the cited cases’ principles were “directly relevant and on point,” which the court called “untrue,” and the court denied the motion with prejudice. The court stated that submitting fictitious citations is sanctionable, declined to sanction the petitioner “today,” warned of monetary penalties, stricken filings, or dismissal for future violations, and concluded that “[s]imilar misconduct by the petitioner in the future will yield sanctions.”
The separate certification Order is limited to this petitioner in this case. It requires a sworn certification with any future filing in the case prepared using GenAI, identifying the tool, the GenAI-drafted portions, and a human review of accuracy, and the letter opinion says it follows Judge Brennan’s order in Lillard v. Offit Kurman. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider the Order’s four elements as an example of what one Delaware court asked a filer to certify.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Document the verification of every quotation attributed to a case; here a Westlaw search for two quoted sentences returned only the petitioner's own motion.
- Review how a filer responds once citation problems are raised; here the court said it would have been inclined to deny the motion without prejudice if the petitioner had been forthright, but after he doubled down in reply it denied the motion with prejudice.
- Consider the terms of the certification order entered here, which requires any future GenAI-assisted filing by this petitioner to identify the tool and the GenAI-drafted portions and to confirm human review of every citation.