Carey v. Breakell

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

The court stated that it "does not take suggestions of the improper use of artificial intelligence lightly," but, because it was transferring the action, it would "leave this issue to be handled according to the discretion of the receiving judge," and said the issue did not affect its ruling. It imposed no sanction, issued no order to show cause, and made no referral. On the motions, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to file a sur-reply, held that the Federal Tort Claims Act venue provision did not permit the FTCA claims (battery and negligent policies or procedures, premised on a search that occurred in Arizona) to proceed in Utah, declined to exercise pendent venue, granted the defendants' motion, and directed the clerk to transfer the entire action to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in the interest of justice rather than dismiss it.

Why does Carey v. Breakell matter for law firms using AI?

Carey is a venue ruling in a suit arising from a National Park Service traffic stop that started in Utah and ended in Arizona. Before reaching the venue question, Judge McIff Allen addressed the plaintiff’s Opposition, which cited two authorities (styled as a 2017 Utah Court of Appeals decision and a 1996 Utah Supreme Court decision) that the court was “unable to locate […] as cited on Westlaw.” The court said these citations were among “a number of case citations suggesting that the improper use of artificial intelligence may have occurred here,” and quoted other courts’ statements that citing non-existent cases undermines the integrity of filings and is “an abuse of the adversary system.”

The court made no finding. It stated that it “does not take suggestions of the improper use of artificial intelligence lightly,” but because the case was going to the District of Arizona, it left the issue “to be handled according to the discretion of the receiving judge” and made clear it had no bearing on the venue ruling. The order therefore records a suspicion and passes it along; it neither sanctions counsel nor orders an explanation.

The procedural choice matters for firms. A transfer, dismissal, or other threshold ruling does not necessarily close out a citation problem: here the transferring judge wrote the concern into the order that accompanies the case to its new court. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that an unresolved citation concern in one court’s order can become the first thing a new judge reads about counsel’s filings.