In re Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis (McMillian v. Zimmer US, Inc.)
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · S.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- In re Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 18-MD-2859 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2025) (Furman, J.) (relating to McMillian v. Zimmer US, Inc., No. 20-CV-2358)
- Decided
- December 16, 2025
Summary
In the Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis multidistrict litigation (18-MD-2859), Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered sanctions against plaintiff's counsel in the member case McMillian v. Zimmer US, Inc., 20-CV-2358, after counsel conceded that papers filed on December 4, 2025 (ECF Nos. 100 through 103, opposing defendants' summary judgment and Daubert motions) contained AI-generated hallucinations and inaccuracies. The order required plaintiff to file corrected versions with redlines by December 22, 2025, and directed defendants to file revised reply briefs by January 14, 2026.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
- Sanction amount:
- $9,000
What sanction did the court impose?
Plaintiff's counsel ordered to reimburse defendants for fees and costs incurred as a result of the defective filings, with the parties first directed to confer on the amount and, absent agreement, defendants to submit a fee letter supported by contemporaneous billing records by January 21, 2026. Reporting indicates the resulting fee award totaled approximately $9,000, though the December 16, 2025 order itself does not fix a sum.
Why does In re Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis (McMillian v. Zimmer US, Inc.) matter for law firms using AI?
McMillian is the relatively rare MDL-context AI-hallucination sanction, and the procedural posture is instructive: the defective filings were the plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment and Daubert motions, meaning the hallucinated authority went to dispositive issues rather than a routine motion. For a managing partner, the order’s structure also illustrates a now-common judicial reflex, fee-shifting calibrated to the actual cost imposed on the opposing party rather than a flat penalty, with the amount fixed only after the parties confer on contemporaneous billing.
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.
- The $9,000 monetary figure is from the Charlotin candidate row and presumably reflects the post-conferral fee award; the December 16, 2025 order itself sets a fee-shifting framework but does not state a dollar amount. The follow-on order quantifying fees was not retrieved.
- The specific generative AI tool used by plaintiff's counsel is not identified in the order.