Braun v. Day

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

The rule to show cause was not ruled on in any docket entry read for this entry. On May 11, 2026, Braun filed a response to the rule to show cause with a sworn declaration and three exhibits labeled with the names of the three cited cases (ECF No. 150). The defendants filed a statement regarding the accuracy of citations in that response (ECF No. 153), and Braun replied (ECF No. 154). A May 12, 2026 minute entry directed the parties to put their focus on settlement, which had been referred to a magistrate judge on April 30. On August 28, 2026, after the parties reached a settlement, Judge Rowland denied all pending motions, including motion 135, without prejudice as moot (ECF No. 169). On September 21, 2026, the court dismissed the action with prejudice on the parties' stipulation, each side bearing its own fees and costs (ECF No. 175). Neither the August 28 entry nor the dismissal order mentions the rule to show cause. No disposition of the show-cause appears on the docket, and with the case closed it is not coded pending.

Why does Braun v. Day matter for law firms using AI?

Braun v. Day is a show-cause entry without a recorded disposition. The court issued the rule after a status hearing, in a minute entry that also resolved several discovery disputes, and framed it directly: “the Court is concerned that Ms. Braun utilized AI in her drafting.” The rule invoked three independent sources of authority (Rule 11(b)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power) and set out a two-track response. Braun could produce “a true and accurate copy” of each of the three cited decisions, or, if she could not, submit a sworn declaration “explaining to the Court how the motion was generated and how she came to locate” them. Either way, she had to “identify which portions of her submissions” in both motions to compel “were AI-generated.”

The later docket shows a contested response but no ruling. Braun filed a sworn declaration with three exhibits labeled with the names of the cited cases; the defendants filed a statement regarding the accuracy of the citations in that response, and Braun replied. The court then steered the parties toward settlement, directing them not to run up expenses and fees amending the complaint and to focus on the settlement process before the magistrate judge. After the case settled, the court denied the motion to compel that contained the challenged citations as moot and dismissed the action with prejudice. None of the entries read addresses whether the cases exist or whether any sanction would issue.

The value of the entry is procedural. The minute entry shows one form a district court’s AI inquiry can take: an order to produce the opinions themselves and to disclose, by portion, what was AI-generated. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider keeping records, for each filing, of where each authority was retrieved and which sections were drafted with AI assistance, since this court asked for the portions that were AI-generated and, failing copies of the opinions, how she located them.