Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

In footnote 16 of the memorandum opinion, the court stated that the Nita H. quote and citation "were one of a number of issues previously raised to Plaintiff's counsel" in the March 12 letter order, and that "[i]n light of the fabricated citation, this Court has sufficient cause, in its discretion, to decline to consider the proposition purportedly drawn from 'Nita H.,'" for which Plaintiff cited no other case. The court then called the point moot, because even accepting the argument Plaintiff had not adequately shown causation. No sanction was imposed in the opinion. On the merits, the court granted the Board's motion in part and denied Plaintiff's cross-motion, entering judgment for the Board on the discrimination and retaliation claims and sending the failure-to-accommodate claim to trial. The opinion was first filed under seal (ECF 82) and the redacted version (ECF 84) was docketed on May 6, 2026. The docket shows Plaintiff's show-cause responses (ECF 76, sealed, and ECF 81) but no separate ruling on them; the case was dismissed on May 29, 2026 after a settlement conference.

Why does Doe v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners matter for law firms using AI?

The citation issue in Doe surfaced through the adversary process before the court acted on it. The Board’s opposition to Plaintiff’s cross-motion included a chart of inaccurate citations and quotations drawn from the memorandum’s standard-of-review and applicable-law sections. Judge Gallagher then reviewed the memorandum herself, observed that “inaccuracies appear to continue” into the analysis section, and noted that Plaintiff’s reply had not addressed “the rampant citation issues identified by Defendants.” Her March 12, 2026 letter order, which she directed be docketed as an order despite its informal form, required counsel to explain why the filing “contained so many erroneous or nonexistent citations and quotations” and to describe how they were compiled.

The April 29 opinion addresses one of those items on the merits. As an alternative theory of retaliation causation, Plaintiff argued that retaliation could be inferred from a “pattern of escalating adverse treatment” following protected activity, “quoting” Nita H. v. Frederick Cnty. Pub. Sch. The court described it as “the fabricated citation,” said that “[i]n light of the fabricated citation” it had discretion to decline to consider the proposition, noting that Plaintiff cited no other case for it, and then found the question moot because the causation argument failed in any event. Neither order mentions artificial intelligence, and the opinion does not rule on the show-cause response.

The docket after the opinion shows a scheduling conference, a settlement conference, and a May 29, 2026 dismissal order, with no separate ruling on the show-cause. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider how this court handled the problem: an opponent’s error chart, the court’s independent check, a show-cause order focused on research method, and a merits opinion that labeled the citation fabricated in a footnote.