Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia, Abingdon Division · W.D. Va. · Virginia bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff used ChatGPT and Gemini for research, filed a brief with fabricated citations and misrepresented holdings.
Consequence
No monetary sanctions; prospective order to flag and verify any AI-derived citations; contempt risk on noncompliance.
Lesson
Prompt admission and remediation got Kruglyak past monetary sanctions but locked in a verification order with contempt teeth.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00024-MFU, 2025 WL 900621 (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2025) (Sargent, M.J.)
- Decided
- March 25, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Vladimir Kruglyak admitted, in response to a court show cause order, that he had relied on free generative-AI platforms including ChatGPT and Gemini to conduct legal research for his reply brief opposing a motion to compel (Dkt. 123). The brief contained fabricated case citations and misrepresented the holdings of real cases. United States Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent found that Kruglyak had not acted in bad faith, credited his prompt admission and remediation, and declined to impose monetary sanctions, but issued a prospective compliance order.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT and Gemini (Kruglyak acknowledged using free generative-AI tools to conduct legal research)
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanctions. The court found Kruglyak's conduct negligent but not in bad faith and entered a prospective order requiring him to identify any cases that resulted from generative-AI research and to verify their accuracy before submission. The court cautioned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and loss of pro se status. The court denied Kruglyak's request to amend his pleading with corrected citations.
Why does Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Kruglyak is the leading W.D. Va. AI-hallucination opinion before the 2025-2026 expansion of the Yoon chambers cluster. Its analytical contribution is the prospective verification order: when the litigant admits AI use, has not acted in bad faith, and remediates promptly, the court swaps monetary sanctions for a forward-looking compliance regime backed by contempt and pro se status revocation. For firms scoping how a W.D. Va. judge may resolve a first-incident AI-fabrication case, Kruglyak is the template for the moderate path between dismissal-with-prejudice (Hollinger E.D. Va.) and warning-only (Suiter and Simpson, Yoon chambers). The case also illustrates the procedural cost of a remediation-only outcome: Kruglyak was not allowed to amend the underlying pleading to substitute corrected citations, so the original defective brief remained on the record as the operative filing for the motion in question.
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.
- Document any AI-assisted research path within filings; the Kruglyak verification order is now a model some W.D. Va. judges may adopt sua sponte.
- When a client's pro se opposing counsel uses AI, ask the court for a prospective verification order modeled on Kruglyak rather than only retroactive sanctions.
- Prospective orders compounding from AI conduct can lock in contempt exposure even where the original conduct was warning-only.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.