Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · N.D. Ill. · Illinois bar guidance
Conduct
Plaintiff's motion to strike, filed 85 minutes after the answer, cited a Seventh Circuit case for two quoted propositions the opinion does not contain.
Consequence
Here the court admonished the plaintiff's side under its inherent authority and gave Rule 11 notice to both parties; no sanction was imposed.
Lesson
Here the court read an unusually fast filing as a sign of AI drafting and said the result would be the same whether or not AI was used.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 26 C 6266, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2026) (Kendall, C.J.), ECF No. 17
- Decided
- August 26, 2026
Summary
Tyler Shelbert sued Baxter International, Inc., asserting disability discrimination claims under the ADA and a USERRA discrimination claim, and moved under Rule 12(f) to strike nine of the affirmative and other defenses in Baxter's answer. The court noted that Baxter filed its 26-page answer at 6:04 PM on July 27, 2026, and that the plaintiff's 10-page motion to strike was filed "just 1 hour 25 minutes later"; his reply followed Baxter's response by 2 hours and 21 minutes. The court said this timing "raises two red flags," the first being "whether Tyler's client was fully apprised of his attorney's actions," and wrote that "[t]he presumable conclusion was that Tyler had AI review Baxter's Answer and had it generate his Motion to Strike." The motion cited Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola (Indeca) v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., 858 F.2d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1988), for two quoted propositions about affirmative defenses. The court found that "[t]he Seventh Circuit opinion in Instituto supports neither of these propositions" and that "the words 'affirmative defense' are not even in the opinion," and suggested in a footnote that the case "presumably intending to be cited" was a 1983 N.D. Ill. decision reported at 576 F. Supp. 985.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court wrote that "[t]he presumable conclusion was that Tyler had AI review Baxter's Answer and had it generate his Motion to Strike"; no admission and no tool named)
- Amount or terms:
- None; admonishment under the court's inherent authority and notice under Rule 11, stated to serve as both parties' warning
What did the court warn about?
Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall granted the motion to strike as to Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13, with 14 days for Baxter to replead, and denied it as to Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 14. Invoking Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, the court wrote: "The Court admonishes Tyler for repeatedly citing to a Seventh Circuit decision for a false proposition." It added that "[e]ven if this mistake were committed without the assistance of AI, that would not change the result," that the plaintiff "had at least 21 days to file his Motion to Strike," and that "[h]ad he taken a couple of hours to proofread his work and verify his citations, he might have discovered the mistake." The court stated that "[t]his admonishment serves as both parties' warning that the Court will not countenance any submission containing false or hallucinated citations or factual assertions," citing two 2026 N.D. Ill. decisions imposing Rule 11 sanctions of $1,500 and $5,000 for AI misuse. No sanction was imposed. The order does not name plaintiff's counsel.
Why does Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Shelbert is an admonishment in a routine pleading motion, and its notable feature is the evidence the court relied on. There was no admission and no hallucinated case name: the Seventh Circuit decision the motion cited exists. What the court found was that the opinion did not support the two propositions quoted from it, and it suggested in a footnote that the case “presumably intending to be cited” was a 1983 district court decision with the same caption. The court then drew an inference from docket timestamps: a bespoke 10-page motion filed 85 minutes after a 26-page answer, and a reply filed 2 hours and 21 minutes after the response. It described AI generation as “[t]he presumable conclusion,” not a finding.
Chief Judge Kendall was explicit that the method did not matter to the result. The court said that while “there is not yet a proscription prohibiting this conduct,” “there is a proscription of filing a brief with citations to cases that do not stand for the asserted proposition,” citing Perez-Castillo v. Blanche, and that “[e]ven if this mistake were committed without the assistance of AI, that would not change the result.” The court also raised client communication, questioning whether the client could have reviewed and approved the motion in the time available.
The consequence here was an admonishment, with no fine or referral, but the order frames it as notice under Rule 11 and addresses it to both sides, citing two recent N.D. Ill. decisions that imposed monetary Rule 11 sanctions for AI misuse. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that in this case the court treated filing speed itself as a signal worth commenting on in its order.
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 time for citation checks before filing, even when a motion is ready early. The court here noted the plaintiff had at least 21 days to file the motion to strike and filed it in 85 minutes.
- Verify that quoted language appears in the cited opinion. Here the court found that the Seventh Circuit decision did not contain the phrase "affirmative defense" at all.
- Review client-approval steps for filings drafted quickly. The court here questioned whether the client was fully apprised of counsel's actions given the filing speed.
- Consider that the court here directed its warning to both parties, not only the side that miscited authority.
Sources
Primary sources
- That AI generated the motion: the court called it the 'presumable conclusion' from the filing speed and said the result would be the same without AI; there is no admission or finding naming a tool.