Redmond v. Dairy Farmers of America
U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · D. Kan. · Kansas bar guidance
Conduct
Here plaintiff's counsel cited a purported D. Kan. decision that neither the defendant nor the court could find, and other authorities the defendant said lacked the quotes or propositions.
Consequence
No sanction. A footnote warned that further errors like these will lead to sanctions under Rule 11 and D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01.
Lesson
Here an unfindable citation, with other quotes or propositions the defendant flagged, drew a written warning tied to the district's AI standing order though the motion turned on other grounds.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Redmond v. Dairy Farmers of America, No. 25-CV-2126-JWB, Memorandum and Order (D. Kan. Apr. 14, 2026) (Broomes, C.J.), ECF No. 67
- Decided
- April 14, 2026
Summary
Antoinette Redmond sued her former employer, Dairy Farmers of America, alleging race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, and disability discrimination under the ADA. The defendant moved for partial dismissal of the amended complaint, arguing that the three Title VII claims were not exhausted before the EEOC. In opposing that motion, plaintiff's counsel cited "a case called Smith v. Cheyenne Cnty. Hosp., 452 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1194 (D. Kan. 2020)." The court recounts that the defendant, "despite remarkable efforts," could not find the case, and states: "Neither could the court." The defendant also pointed "to other examples of Plaintiff quoting or citing cases that do not contain such quotes or propositions." In the body of the opinion, the court separately described the opposition as referring "quite misleadingly" to a magistrate judge's order granting leave to amend, because counsel omitted the magistrate judge's statement that exhaustion would be better addressed on a dispositive motion.
- AI tool:
- Not determined (the court "strongly suspects" the errors "are attributable to the careless use of generative artificial intelligence"; no tool is named and no finding of AI use is made)
What did the court warn about?
No sanction. In a footnote to the Memorandum and Order granting the partial motion to dismiss, Chief Judge John W. Broomes wrote that the court "strongly suspects that these errors are attributable to the careless use of generative artificial intelligence ("AI")" and warned that "further errors like these will lead to sanctions under Rule 11 and the court's recent standing order on the use of AI," citing D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. On the merits, the court held that the EEOC charge did not exhaust the race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims and dismissed those three counts with prejudice, because any new EEOC charge would be time-barred. The ADA disparate treatment count was not part of the motion. The order is dated April 14, 2026 and was filed on April 15, 2026 (ECF No. 67).
Why does Redmond v. Dairy Farmers of America matter for law firms using AI?
The Redmond order is a merits ruling on Title VII exhaustion, and the citation problem appears only in a footnote. The footnote is still specific. After the defendant reported that it could not find “Smith v. Cheyenne Cnty. Hosp., 452 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1194 (D. Kan. 2020),” the court looked for the case itself and wrote, “Neither could the court.” It then connected that missing case to the defendant’s “other examples of Plaintiff quoting or citing cases that do not contain such quotes or propositions” and stated that it “strongly suspects that these errors are attributable to the careless use of generative artificial intelligence.” The court made no finding that AI was used, did not name counsel, and did not ask counsel for an explanation.
The court’s response was a warning. It wrote that “[p]laintiff’s counsel is warned that further errors like these will lead to sanctions under Rule 11 and the court’s recent standing order on the use of AI,” citing D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01. The order imposed no sanction, and the motion was decided on exhaustion grounds that did not depend on the missing citation.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this district, a written warning referencing the standing order is now on the record in this case. The same opinion also criticized the opposition for referring “quite misleadingly” to a magistrate judge’s earlier order without mentioning that the magistrate judge had deferred the exhaustion question to a dispositive motion, a candor point that does not depend on AI.
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 every citation in an opposition brief before filing. Here the court checked a purported D. Kan. case the defendant could not find and reported that it could not find it either.
- Review the district's standing orders on AI use. Here the court tied its warning expressly to D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01 as well as to Rule 11.
- Document how the firm characterizes prior rulings. Here the court separately said the opposition referred to a magistrate judge's order "quite misleadingly" by omitting a caveat in that order.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the court states only that it "strongly suspects" the errors are attributable to careless use of generative AI. It makes no finding that AI was used and names no tool.
- The order does not name plaintiff's counsel, and does not identify the other quotations and propositions the defendant flagged beyond the Smith citation.