Wurm v. Anchor Bay Packaging Corporation
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · E.D. Mich. · Michigan bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se plaintiff filed unsigned, rule-violating summary judgment, discovery and sanctions motions that the court said had all the earmarks of AI generation.
Consequence
Here the court struck or denied the motions, ordered him to show cause for violating its pretrial order, issued an express AI warning, and stayed the case.
Lesson
Here the court warned a pro se litigant about AI in person, then stated in writing that AI cannot give legal advice and Rule 11 still applies.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Wurm v. Anchor Bay Packaging Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-12473, Order Striking Plaintiff's Unauthorized and Noncomplying Motion for Summary Disposition (ECF No. 18) and Denying Unauthorized and Noncomplying Motions Seeking Amendments, Sanctions and Discovery (ECF Nos. 19, 20 & 22), Staying the Case and Requiring Plaintiff to Show Cause (E.D. Mich. Sept. 4, 2026) (Patti, M.J.), ECF No. 23
- Decided
- September 4, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Daniel Wurm, suing Anchor Bay Packaging Corporation, filed a second motion for "summary disposition," a motion for leave to amend that motion (and possibly his complaint and for discovery), a motion to compel discovery, and a motion for sanctions against defense counsel. The court's pretrial conference order had prohibited summary judgment motions before a schedule was set and had stayed discovery so the parties could explore early settlement. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti found the motions defective on several grounds: they did not comply with E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a), 7.1(d)(2) and 5.1(a)(2); the summary disposition motion relied on Michigan Court Rules that do not apply in federal court; the motions were unsigned; and they violated the prohibition on early summary judgment motions and the discovery stay. The court noted that the need to read the Local Rules and "the dangers of relying upon generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)" had been explained to Wurm in person at the pretrial conference, and stated that "[t]his motion and the others addressed in this order have all the earmarks of having been generated by AI." The order does not identify any fabricated citations.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court states the motions "have all the earmarks of having been generated by AI"; no tool named or admitted)
What did the court warn about?
The court struck the second summary disposition motion, denied the motion to amend it, and denied the discovery and sanctions motions. It ordered Wurm to show cause in writing by September 25, 2026 why he should not be sanctioned or held in contempt for ignoring the court's order by filing discovery-related and summary judgment motions. In a separate section headed "AI Warning," it warned him "about the dangers of using AI to draft his show cause response or elsewhere," stating that "AI cannot give legal advice," that its use in research "has led to glaring misstatements of law and sanctions awarded against both attorneys and pro se litigants," and that pro se litigants remain subject to Rule 11(b)(2). Having "lost all confidence that Plaintiff will refrain from filing unauthorized motions," the court stayed the case in all respects except the upcoming settlement conference and the show-cause obligation, stated that no further filings will be accepted, said it will impose a pre-motion filing requirement if the case resumes, and urged Wurm to seek help from the pro se clinic.
Why does Wurm v. Anchor Bay Packaging Corporation matter for law firms using AI?
Wurm is an AI warning directed at a pro se litigant, embedded in a case-management order. The court’s concerns were procedural: motions filed in violation of an order barring early summary judgment and staying discovery, reliance on Michigan Court Rules in federal court, and unsigned papers. The AI point is an inference: the filings “have all the earmarks of having been generated by AI,” and Wurm had already been warned about “the dangers of relying upon generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)” at the pretrial conference.
The warning section is forward-looking. It warns Wurm about the dangers of using AI to draft his show-cause response, quotes E.D. Mich. authority that generative AI programs “are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases,” and cites decisions awarding sanctions, including one against a pro se litigant for hallucinated citations, adding that “even in the absence of bad faith, Rule 11 sanctions for use of AI generated phantom cases may be warranted.” The order does not find any fabricated citation in Wurm’s filings.
The court’s remedies address the volume of filings rather than AI directly: a stay, a halt to further filings, and a promised pre-motion requirement. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, when litigating against a self-represented party, this court treated apparent AI drafting as part of a broader pattern of noncompliant motions.
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.
- Consider that this court warned a pro se opponent about AI use at the pretrial conference and again in a dedicated section of its order.
- Review filings for the defects this court listed alongside its AI observation: inapplicable state court rules, local-rule noncompliance, and missing signatures.
- Document an opposing party's pattern of unauthorized motions; here the court responded with a stay, a bar on further filings, and a planned pre-motion requirement.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is the court's inference (the motions have 'all the earmarks of having been generated by AI'); Wurm did not admit AI use in anything the order records.
- Outcome of the show-cause order (response due September 25, 2026) not checked; the show-cause concerns violation of the court's pretrial order, not AI use.