Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · E.D. Mich. · Michigan bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se Plaintiff's discovery briefing contained citation patterns the court found consistent with generative AI use without verification.
Consequence
Warning issued and Plaintiff directed to read Patti's foundational Ali v. IT People $200/citation order.
Lesson
Patti's chambers now flag suspect-citation patterns even without a confirmed AI tool, treating Ali as standing notice.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-12333 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2025) (Patti, M.J.)
- Decided
- October 30, 2025
Summary
Pro se Plaintiff Sohyon Lamplighter Warner filed briefing in support of a motion to compel discovery and a motion for protective order that contained citations the court flagged as suspect. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti directed Plaintiff to thoroughly read his prior order in Ali v. IT People, which had imposed $200 per misrepresentation, and warned that future noncompliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, including mischaracterizations of prior court orders, may result in related sanctions. The court declined to impose sanctions in this order.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (specific tool not identified; use inferred by the court from misrepresented citations and patterns observed in other recent filings)
What sanction did the court impose?
Warning issued to Plaintiff with a directive to read Ali v. IT People Corp., Inc., No. 2:25-cv-10815, 2025 WL 2682622 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2025). The court also struck Plaintiff's October 24, 2025 separate statement of resolved and unresolved issues for failure to cooperate on a joint statement and for using the filing as a 29-page supplemental brief. No monetary sanction imposed.
Why does Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Warner v. Gilbarco illustrates Patti’s intermediate posture: when a pro se filing surfaces citations that look AI-generated but the court has not held a hearing to confirm which specific cites are problematic, Patti directs the litigant to read the foundational Ali v. IT People order and warns that future noncompliance will trigger sanctions. The directive functions as formal notice. A second instance, even if the Plaintiff swaps tools or claims to have stopped using AI, would face the Ali $200-per-citation framework with the Warner directive serving as the prerequisite warning.
The order also includes a procedural detail relevant to discovery practice: Patti directed Plaintiff that confidential discovery materials shall not be uploaded onto any AI platform. This restriction is now standard in Patti’s chambers and reflects the court’s view that confidentiality obligations and AI-vendor data-retention practices are difficult to reconcile. For firms representing Defendants producing confidential business records, the practical effect is that Patti orders foreclose the pro se Plaintiff’s ability to feed produced documents through ChatGPT or similar tools as part of analysis. Counsel may want to reference Warner’s restriction in any negotiated protective order to harmonize the standard with E.D. Mich. practice.
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.
- Briefing practice in Patti chambers is calibrated to flag misrepresented citations in pro se discovery filings; opposing counsel should preserve any flagged citation for follow-up.
- A directive to read a prior chambers order functions as a formal warning; future violations risk Ali-framework sanctions even on first encounter with a new pro se litigant.
- Prohibitions on uploading discovery materials to AI platforms are now standard in Patti orders; firms representing parties producing confidential materials should expect this restriction.