White v. Walmart, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division · S.D. Ind. · Indiana bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- White v. Walmart, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01120-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2026)
- Decided
- April 14, 2026
Summary
Plaintiff Cynthia White's counsel uploaded Walmart's discovery responses into an unspecified AI program, asked it to identify insufficient responses, and copied and pasted the AI-generated list of supposed deficiencies into an email to defense counsel and the Court. When questioned by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker at an April 10, 2026, telephonic conference, plaintiff's counsel admitted he had performed no independent review. The AI output claimed every one of Walmart's interrogatory answers was deficient.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
No monetary sanction. The Court issued a written warning that exclusive reliance on AI-generated discovery positions is improper and does not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)'s good-faith meet-and-confer obligation. The Court ordered plaintiff to serve complete, independently reviewed discovery responses by April 27, 2026, and admonished counsel for taking "a perilous shortcut around his responsibilities as a trained legal professional."
Why does White v. Walmart, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
White is a notable shift in the AI-sanctions landscape: the hallucination here is not a fabricated case citation in a brief but an AI-generated list of discovery objections that counsel forwarded to opposing counsel and the Court without independent review. Magistrate Judge Baker held that this conduct also failed Rule 37(a)(1)‘s meet-and-confer requirement, citing Tijerina v. Spotify and Sheets v. Charlotte County. For managing partners, the case extends the duty of independent verification beyond brief-writing into routine discovery practice, and confirms that “outsourcing positions to artificial intelligence” is sanctionable even where no fake case is cited. Walmart is now a defendant in at least two reported AI-misuse orders (see also Wadsworth v. Walmart, D. Wyo.).
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.