Twigg v. BSN Sports, Inc.

What sanction did the court impose?

In a May 21, 2026 memorandum opinion and order (ECF Nos. 231, 232), the court denied the omnibus motion except for delay damages, granted in part, amended the judgment to $384,697.45, declared the verdict and judgment final, granted counsel's motion to correct his brief, and ordered Mattiacci to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, by brief due June 8, 2026, followed by a hearing. The court directed the brief to address his use of AI, how he checked what it produced, whether citation errors remain, and how an errata that substantively changed citations squares with calling the errors minor. A May 27 scheduling order set the show-cause hearing for June 18, 2026. By order signed June 18, 2026 (ECF No. 239), as described in the docket text, Mattiacci must personally pay $1,500 to the Clerk within 14 days, a sum not counted as payment of taxed litigation costs, and is suspended from practicing in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for six months, with automatic reinstatement, starting June 22, 2026.

Why does Twigg v. BSN Sports, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?

Twigg v. BSN Sports arose after a verdict, not before one. Counsel’s client had won at trial, and the post-trial motion sought to mold the verdict, add delay damages, and tax costs, or alternatively a new trial. The defective citations were in the brief supporting that motion. Defendants flagged them; the court then did its own review and concluded that not only were many citations “false or completely irrelevant,” but “there are additional citations to cases throughout this brief that do not remotely relate to the assertions advanced.” Chief Judge Brann kept the merits and the conduct apart, stating that he had “not allowed those errors to color what may be meritorious arguments,” and deciding the post-trial issues before turning to counsel’s conduct.

The opinion treats the response to the challenge as the more serious problem. “The issues with Mr. Mattiacci’s briefing appear to be violations of Rule 11. But what the Court finds even more troubling are Mr. Mattiacci’s attempts to shift the blame for such mistakes.” The court described a reply that labeled the errors clerical, included “a long soliloquy on the perils of solo practitioners,” pointed to purported misconduct by opposing counsel, and called the issues “procedural distractions.” It rejected counsel’s claim that about 25 citations independently supported his arguments as “entirely false,” and it noted a history of noncompliance with local rules and an earlier admonition for an ex parte email to chambers staff during trial. The opinion directed that the show-cause brief explain his AI use, how he checked what the AI produced, and whether citation errors remain.

The docket shows the result on the day set for the show-cause hearing: a $1,500 payment to the Clerk and a six-month suspension from practice in the district, with automatic reinstatement. The written order was not available for review, so its reasoning is not reflected here. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the court listed among the potential violations counsel’s “unwillingness … to fully acknowledge, take responsibility for, and correct the citation errors,” listed among the potential violations the show-cause brief had to address.