Evans v. Robertson
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · E.D. Mich. · Michigan bar guidance
Conduct
Both pro se parties kept filing factitious citations after a court order requiring them to certify that every citation was checked and accurate.
Consequence
Here the court revoked both parties' electronic filing privileges for the case, kept seven briefs stricken, and warned of $100-per-brief sanctions.
Lesson
Here a citation certification order set the baseline: continued factitious citations after it were treated as tantamount to bad faith.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Evans v. Robertson, No. 24-13435, Order Imposing Sanctions on Plaintiff Sybrena Evans and Defendant Danielle Robertson (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2025) (Levy, J.), ECF No. 111
- Decided
- November 20, 2025
Summary
Plaintiff Sybrena Evans and defendant "Danielle Robertson" (which the court notes is an alias), both proceeding pro se, had been ordered on September 25, 2025 by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford to include in every filing a written representation that each citation had been personally checked, is accurate, and stands for its asserted proposition. On November 7, 2025, Judge Judith E. Levy ordered both to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for repeated failure to follow court orders and for dishonesty to the court, having identified four later filings by Robertson and three by Evans with factitious citations. Robertson took "full and personal responsibility," attributed the errors to "careless transcription, misapplication of case holdings, and failure to perform the required verification checks," supplied corrections, and did not oppose sanctions; her response exceeded the court's page limit. Evans said she had help from law librarians and used Westlaw to verify her citations and blamed "clerical mix-ups," partial search results, and a habit of using quotation marks for emphasis. The court found her explanations lacked "consistency and credibility," noting that two of her citations (to "Smith v. Arnold" and "Townsend v. Chase Bank USA") bore no resemblance to the case she said she had meant to cite.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order sanctions both parties for factitious citations but does not mention AI; the magistrate judge's September 25, 2025 order had called earlier factitious citations "presumably a product of using artificial intelligence (AI) software")
- Sanction amount:
- Revocation of both parties' Pro Se Electronic Document Upload privileges for the case (filings by mail or hand delivery only); no monetary sanction; seven previously stricken briefs to remain stricken; warning that each future brief with factitious citations would draw a one-hundred-dollar fine
What sanction did the court impose?
The court found that both parties' factitious citations, even if not malicious, were "tantamount to bad faith" or "wanton," and that Evans's explanations were not credible. Invoking its inherent power, it held that "an appropriate sanction at this time is to revoke Plaintiff and Defendant's Pro Se Electronic Document Upload privileges for this case," so that both must file by mail or hand delivery to the Clerk's office. It declined to impose monetary sanctions or require an in-person hearing "at this time," but stated that if a future filing contains factitious citations it "will impose additional sanctions, including but not limited to monetary sanctions of $100.00 per brief with factitious citations." Seven previously stricken briefs (ECF Nos. 78, 79, 90, 91, 93, 103, 105) remain stricken, and the court denied Evans leave to file corrected versions, finding her violations were not "inadvertent errors" and that the time to file had expired without good cause for an extension. The order closes by warning both parties that future violations of the court's orders will result in additional sanctions.
Why does Evans v. Robertson matter for law firms using AI?
This order is the second step in the court’s escalating response to factitious citations by both sides in Evans v. Robertson. After Magistrate Judge Stafford’s September 2025 certification order (see Evans v. Robertson (September 2025)), Judge Levy identified seven more filings with factitious citations, four by Robertson and three by Evans, and issued an order to show cause. The two responses drew different treatment. The court “appreciate[d]” Robertson’s acceptance of responsibility but still found sanctions appropriate; it rejected Evans’s accounts as inconsistent, noting that she described the same two citations first as “clerical mix-ups during final formatting” and later as “incompletely verified due to reliance on partial Westlaw search results.”
The court grounded the sanction in its inherent authority, citing Metz v. Unizan Bank for the rule that sanctions may be imposed when conduct is “tantamount to bad faith.” It chose a procedural remedy over a fine: revoking both parties’ pro se electronic upload privileges for the case, which the court said “will remind the parties to be appropriately careful and intentional with their filings.” It also warned that additional sanctions could include $100 per brief with factitious citations.
The order itself does not mention AI. The case continued: in July 2026 the court struck both parties’ objections to a report and recommendation for factitious citations, without imposing the forecast monetary sanction; see Evans v. Robertson (July 2026). Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the court weighed each party’s explanation separately, acknowledging one party’s candor and rejecting the other’s shifting accounts, though it imposed the same sanction on both.
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.
- Verify citations before signing any court-ordered certification. Here both parties' continued factitious citations after the certification order were found 'tantamount to bad faith' or wanton even if not malicious.
- Document a consistent account of how a citation error arose. The court rejected Evans's explanations as lacking 'consistency and credibility' when two versions in the same response differed.
- Consider that non-monetary sanctions can change how a party litigates; here both parties lost electronic filing for the case and must file by mail or hand delivery.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: this order does not mention AI. The only AI reference in the orders read is the magistrate judge's September 25, 2025 statement that earlier factitious citations were 'presumably' a product of AI software. The tracker's AI coding for this row is a Charlotin inference.
- The November 7, 2025 order to show cause (ECF No. 106) was not read; the number of filings it identified, its page limit, and its list of possible sanctions are taken from this order's description of it. When the seven listed briefs were first stricken is not stated in this order.