Odunze v. Lake Effect
U.S. District Court, District of Utah · D. Utah · Utah bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff cited 'Wylie v. Ceva Logistics, 2021 WL 5040183' in opposition to a Rule 36(b) motion; court could not locate the case.
Consequence
Withdrawal-of-admissions motion granted on the merits. Conditional Rule 11 admonishment issued in footnote 3; no formal sanction.
Lesson
Romero chambers (D. Utah) issues conditional 'if AI is being used' admonishments before treating unverifiable citations as a finding.
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Odunze v. Lake Effect, No. 2:24-cv-00341-DBB-CMR (D. Utah Feb. 4, 2026) (Romero, Mag. J.) (ECF No. 144, fn. 3)
- Decided
- February 4, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Promise N. Odunze brought a Title VII and Utah Anti-Discrimination Act employment discrimination action against Lake Effect (his former employer) and supervisor Celeste Hewlett, alleging assault, battery, and discriminatory termination from his position as a security guard. Hewlett's responses to Odunze's Requests for Admission were served on the wrong email address (a "0" instead of an "o" in the domain) and arrived 33 days late, generating default-admission status under Rule 36(a)(3). Hewlett moved to withdraw the deemed admissions under Rule 36(b). Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero issued a Memorandum Decision and Order on February 4, 2026 granting the withdrawal. In footnote 3 of the order, the court noted that Odunze's Opposition relied on a case it could not locate ("Wylie v. Ceva Logistics: 2021 WL 5040183 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2021)") and admonished compliance with Rule 11.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI generally; specific tool not named in the order
What sanction did the court impose?
Hewlett's Motion to Withdraw Admissions granted; Lake Effect's parallel motion denied as moot. The footnote-level AI admonishment read in full: "If artificial intelligence technology is being used, Plaintiff is admonished to be in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) (requiring representations to the court consist of 'legal contentions warranted by existing law'). Continued misconduct of this nature may lead to sanctions." No formal sanction imposed.
Why does Odunze v. Lake Effect matter for law firms using AI?
Odunze v. Lake Effect is procedurally narrow: a Rule 36(b) motion to withdraw deemed admissions caused by a typo in an email address, which the court grants on the merits because forcing admissions on a 33-day-late typo would “practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” The AI question lives entirely in footnote 3 and is conditional rather than affirmative. The court does not find that Odunze used AI; it identifies a single citation, “Wylie v. Ceva Logistics, 2021 WL 5040183 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2021),” that it “was unable to locate,” and then writes: “If artificial intelligence technology is being used, Plaintiff is admonished to be in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” That conditional structure is meaningfully different from the more particularized warnings issued in the contemporaneous Pead chambers cases (Lee v. Capital One on Feb. 24, 2026; Vernieri v. Dyno Nobel on Mar. 4, 2026), which both treat AI use as a fact established by the defense’s identification of fabricated citations and then warn about future Rule 11 exposure. Romero chambers, by contrast, holds the AI finding open and admonishes prophylactically. For partners reading the case, the lesson is twofold: first, the chambers map matters in this district (Pead and Kohler particularize, Romero conditionalizes), and second, even a conditional Rule 11 admonishment is now the floor in D. Utah pro se practice when an unverifiable citation surfaces. Cross-reference: Lee v. Capital One Bank USA, N.A. (D. Utah Feb. 24, 2026) (Pead, Mag. J.); Vernieri v. Dyno Nobel Ams. (D. Utah Mar. 4, 2026) (Pead, Mag. J.); Harris v. Washington Cnty. (D. Utah Mar. 24, 2026) (Kohler, Mag. J.).
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.
- Note the conditional formulation: Romero chambers will issue a Rule 11 admonishment without first making a definitive finding that AI was used; cite this when an unverifiable citation surfaces but the source is ambiguous.
- Track the chambers split in D. Utah: Romero issues conditional admonishments; Pead and Kohler issue more particularized AI findings tied to defense identification of specific cases. Brief differently depending on which chambers you are in.
- Consider including a sworn declaration about AI use in any reply brief that flags an opponent's unverifiable citation; the conditional 'if AI is being used' framing suggests chambers want some evidentiary handle before escalating beyond admonishment.
Sources
Primary sources
- The order identifies one suspect citation by name (Wylie v. Ceva Logistics, with a 2021 WL number that the court could not verify); the court does not state definitively that the citation was AI-generated, only that 'if AI technology is being used' the plaintiff must comply with Rule 11.
- The court does not enumerate any other unverifiable citations in the Opposition, and the AI admonishment is conditional rather than a particularized finding.