Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc.
Delaware Court of Chancery · Del. Ch. · Delaware bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2025) (Will, V.C.)
- Decided
- April 4, 2025
Summary
Pro se petitioner Daniel Jaiyong An filed a motion to compel discovery against Archblock, Inc. The motion contained multiple incorrect citations: cases that did not stand for the propositions cited (e.g., Terramar Retail Centers, LLC v. Marion #2-Seaport Trust, cited for discovery discretion, but actually a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss with no discovery issue) and quotations that did not appear in the cited cases or anywhere in Westlaw's All State & Federal database (e.g., a fabricated quote 'A party cannot unilaterally decide to stay discovery' attributed to Deutsch v. ZST Digital Networks, and 'Delaware courts have traditionally construed the scope of permissible discovery liberally' attributed to Production Resources Group, LLC v. NCT Group). Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will noted that when she prompted ChatGPT to find a Delaware decision with one of the fabricated quotes, it directed her to the Terramar decision, supporting the inference of GenAI hallucination. In reply, the petitioner doubled down, claiming language was merely 'paraphrased rather than verbatim' and that principles were 'on point,' which the court found untrue.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (unspecified)
What sanction did the court impose?
Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will denied the motion to compel with prejudice (noting she would have been inclined to deny without prejudice had the petitioner been forthright). No monetary sanctions imposed. The court warned the petitioner that future filings must be truthful, accurate, and cite legitimate authorities, and imposed a forward-looking certification requirement on the use of GenAI via a separate Order Requiring Certification on Use Of Generative AI (Dkt. 39), based on Judge Brennan's precedent in Lillard v. Offit Kurman, P.A., 2025 WL 800833 (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2025). Future violations may result in monetary penalties, stricken filings, or dismissal. The opinion states that 'submission of a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable.'
Why does Daniel Jaiyong An v. Archblock, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
An v. Archblock is the first major ruling from Delaware’s Court of Chancery on generative AI use in court filings. Because the Chancery Court handles a substantial share of Fortune 500 corporate litigation, its AI guidance is influential beyond Delaware. The opinion balances acknowledgment of AI’s efficiency benefits against a clear line: unverified submission of AI-generated content is sanctionable. The forward-looking disclosure requirement signals that future AI-assisted filings in Chancery will face heightened scrutiny.