Beedemariam Kassaw v. Wal-Mart Corporation
U.S. District Court, Western District of New York · W.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff filed a sur-reply containing fabricated case citations the court attributed to apparent AI use.
Consequence
Memorandum at Dkt. 79 stricken; no monetary sanction or bar referral imposed.
Lesson
W.D.N.Y. is striking AI-tainted pro se filings without monetary sanctions; the procedural cost is the deterrent.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Kassaw v. Wal-Mart Corp., No. 6:23-cv-06181 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2026) (Wolford, C.J.)
- Decided
- March 30, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Beedemariam Kassaw filed a January 2026 memorandum/sur-reply (Dkt. 79) in his employment discrimination action against Wal-Mart. The court found the brief contained AI-generated "hallucinated cases," meaning fabricated case citations that did not exist. Chief Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford ordered Dkt. 79 stricken from the record. The order does not impose a monetary sanction or refer Kassaw for further discipline at this stage but flags the apparent AI use as the basis for striking the filing.
- AI tool:
- Implied (court found apparent use of generative AI; specific tool not identified on the record)
What sanction did the court impose?
Memorandum/sur-reply at Dkt. 79 stricken. No monetary sanction imposed; no bar referral (pro se litigant).
Why does Beedemariam Kassaw v. Wal-Mart Corporation matter for law firms using AI?
Kassaw is a representative example of the W.D.N.Y. response pattern to apparent AI hallucinations in pro se filings: identify the suspect citations, find them non-existent, and strike the filing without escalating to monetary sanctions or disciplinary referral. Chief Judge Wolford’s order does not articulate a prospective AI disclosure rule for the case, so the impact is limited to the stricken sur-reply itself. For firms representing employers in W.D.N.Y. employment matters facing pro se plaintiffs, the case is a useful precedent for move-to-strike practice when an opposing brief shows AI-hallucination markers (case names that do not resolve in Westlaw, citations to non-existent reporter pages, quoted holdings absent from the cited opinions).
The order is brief and procedural. It is not a doctrinal expansion of the duty of candor or Rule 11; it is a docket-management order treating AI-generated fabrications as a sufficient basis to strike, full stop. Firms tracking the proliferation of AI sanctions across federal districts should classify this as a “strike-only” outcome rather than a sanctions outcome, distinct from cases like Park v. Kim (referral to grievance panel) or Mata v. Avianca (monetary sanctions plus client-disclosure order).
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.
- For W.D.N.Y. matters, anticipate that opposing pro se filings with apparent AI citations may be moved to strike and that Chief Judge Wolford has granted such motions.
- Document a citation-verification step on any brief that may be challenged as AI-assisted; the cost of an AI-tainted filing is loss of the brief, not just embarrassment.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Date discrepancy: R&G's tracker lists this order as 2026-03-31; Charlotin's database lists 2026-03-30. Used Charlotin date as the more granular primary record.
- Order text was not extracted verbatim during this verification pass; Charlotin's CSV synopsis is the source for the substantive narrative. Re-extract from the PDF before quoting in any derivative content.
- Specific AI tool used by plaintiff is not identified on the record; 'Implied' reflects the court's finding of apparent AI use rather than an on-the-record admission.