Pennmark Coventry Holdings, LLC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · E.D. Pa. · Pennsylvania bar guidance
Conduct
Here plaintiff's Daubert opposition quoted Kannankeril and Kumho Tire for language the court could not find in either case.
Consequence
No sanction; in a footnote the court questioned whether the quotes were counsel's error or AI hallucination, and it excluded the expert on other grounds.
Lesson
Here the court put a suspected AI-hallucinated quotation on the public record in a ruling against the filer, without any show-cause proceeding.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Pennmark Coventry Holdings, LLC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 25-cv-1918, Memorandum (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2026) (Kenney, J.), ECF No. 68, at 23-24 n.6
- Decided
- September 9, 2026
Summary
In a commercial lease dispute between the owner of the Coventry Mall in Pottstown, Pennsylvania and its tenant Kohl's, the defendant moved under Daubert to exclude the plaintiff's retail-operations expert, Ron Santicola. In its opposition, the plaintiff argued that "the classic Daubert factors . . . 'simply [are] not applicable'" to experience-based testimony and that reliability "'depends heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it'", attributing the quoted language to Kannankeril v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802 (3d Cir. 1997), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). In a footnote, the court stated that "it could not locate the language that Plaintiff purports to have quoted in either Kannankeril or Kumho Tire Co., Ltd." and questioned whether this was "merely an error by counsel, or whether Plaintiff may have relied upon a hallucinated quote from an artificial intelligence program." It added that the plaintiff "also appears to have overstated" what both cases stand for, explaining that both reiterate the court's gatekeeping role and indicate the Daubert factors may be useful for experience-based testimony.
- AI tool:
- Suspected (the court "questions whether this is merely an error by counsel, or whether Plaintiff may have relied upon a hallucinated quote from an artificial intelligence program"; no finding, no tool named)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court raised the question in a footnote and imposed no sanction, show-cause, or directive
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
Judge Chad F. Kenney granted the Daubert motion in full, excluding Santicola's expert report and rebuttal report and precluding him from testifying at the upcoming non-jury trial, on the grounds that he was not shown to be qualified, that his opinions rested on subjective judgments without reliable methodology, and that the reports offered inadmissible testimony on the parties' state of mind and legal conclusions. It rejected the plaintiff's alternative request for a narrower ruling limited to specific sentences, finding that approach unworkable given the problems it had identified. The exclusion rests on Rule 702 and the court's reliability analysis, not on the misquotations. As to the quotations, the memorandum raises the question in a footnote and takes no further action: it imposes no sanction, issues no order to show cause, and gives no direction to counsel. The separate order entered the same day (ECF No. 69) grants the motion and says nothing about the quotations.
Why does Pennmark Coventry Holdings, LLC v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
The court’s remark in Pennmark sits in a footnote to a Daubert ruling, but it names the question directly. After setting out the plaintiff’s argument that the Daubert factors are inapplicable to experience-based testimony, the court stated that “it could not locate the language that Plaintiff purports to have quoted in either Kannankeril or Kumho Tire Co., Ltd.” and that it therefore “questions whether this is merely an error by counsel, or whether Plaintiff may have relied upon a hallucinated quote from an artificial intelligence program.”
The court then addressed the substance. It explained that Kannankeril described the Daubert factors as non-exhaustive and not “applicable in every case” while still examining the sources and methods behind the expert’s opinion, and that Kumho Tire held “Daubert’s general principles apply to the expert matters described in Rule 702” and noted that “some of Daubert’s questions can help to evaluate the reliability even of experience-based testimony.” Both cases, the court concluded, “reiterate the importance of a trial court’s gatekeeping function in determining the reliability of expert testimony, regardless of what it is based on.”
The court did not answer its own question and did not act on it; the expert was excluded on qualification and reliability grounds. The entry is in the collection because the Charlotin tracker lists it. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here a misquotation drew a public comment about possible AI use in a decision the filer lost on other grounds.
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.
- Verify quotations from admissibility authorities such as Kannankeril and Kumho Tire against the reporter. Here the court could not locate the quoted language in either case.
- Review whether a quoted case supports the proposition, not only whether the words appear. Here the court also found the plaintiff appeared to overstate what both cases hold.
- Document the drafting source of quoted language in briefs. Here the court openly asked whether the quotation came from counsel's error or an AI program.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a question the court raised, not a finding: the footnote asks whether the misquotation is 'merely an error by counsel' or a 'hallucinated quote from an artificial intelligence program' and does not answer it.