Guy v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

The court denied the motion to quash and for a protective order, ordered Guy to appear for his continued deposition on May 15, 2026, and ordered that "no later than May 15, 2026, counsel for Mr. Guy shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining the fabricated case quotations contained in the motion to quash." The order imposes no sanction. On May 15, Guy's counsel at Binnall Law Group filed declarations (ECF No. 399). In his, partner Jason C. Greaves stated that under tight time constraints he used "Claude Console" to create an initial draft, gave it to an associate with instructions to check the citations, and relied on her report that she had verified them; that he "did not double check the quotations"; and that the firm's usual quality-assurance review was skipped because of the emergency. He took "full responsibility" as supervising partner and signer, said partner Jesse Binnall, whose name was in the signature block, was not involved in drafting, and attached a corrected redline. No later ruling on the declarations was located in the docket entries reviewed.

Why does Guy v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO matter for law firms using AI?

The order is mainly a discovery ruling. Judge Illston held that Guy was a managing agent of the government defendants when he was noticed for deposition, rejected his service, due-process, Fourth Amendment and undue-burden arguments, and found no good cause for a protective order. The citation problem is addressed at the end, and the court’s description is direct: the motion contained “purported case quotations that do not exist in the cases as cited.” Earlier in the order, discussing the Fourth Amendment argument, the court noted that Guy “cites no authority, apart from a misquoted case,” referring to the Henson v. Turn quotation, and found the argument frivolous.

The court did not sanction anyone in this order. It recorded that the plaintiffs had raised the problem, that the reply brief did not explain it, and that counsel had no explanation when questioned at the hearing, and it required a sworn declaration “explaining the fabricated case quotations” within two days. The explanation came from partner Jason C. Greaves, who said he used Claude Console to prepare an initial draft, told an associate that the draft had come from AI and that the citations needed to be carefully checked, and filed after she reported the citations verified, without checking the quotations himself or running the firm’s usual final review. He described this as his first use of an AI platform to draft a brief and took responsibility as the supervising partner who signed the motion.

The declaration also shows how a firm AI policy can be on paper and still not operate on a given filing. Greaves quoted his firm’s policy treating AI output as “drafts requiring verification” and requiring attorneys to “[v]erify all citations and facts manually,” and acknowledged that he “obviously failed to adequately follow these policies.” No ruling on the declarations was located.