Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · D.D.C. · District of Columbia bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel filed opposition citing 2 nonexistent cases (Krishna; Perez) plus 8 misrepresented authorities; failed to respond for months.
Consequence
Opposition stricken; complaint dismissed; counsel sanctioned $1,000 after sealed in-camera hearing reducing initial figure.
Lesson
Howell uses staggered orders: show-cause naming each defective cite, strike order, dismissal order, then sanction proceeding.
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Zhang v. Nat'l Pub. Radio, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00699 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2025) (Howell, J.)
- Decided
- December 18, 2025
Summary
Wanyu Zhang sued National Public Radio, Inc. in the District of Columbia, represented by attorney Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko. After NPR moved to dismiss and pointed out in its reply that Zhang's opposition brief relied on cases that "do not appear to exist" or were misrepresented "to a degree that would seem impossible if she had actually reviewed them," Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an October 15, 2025 minute order directing plaintiff's counsel to show cause why the opposition should not be stricken and why counsel should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2). The order identified two entirely nonexistent citations (Krishna v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 2018 WL 2017613 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2018), and Perez v. Horizon Lines, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011)) and eight misrepresented authorities. After the show-cause response, the court struck the opposition by November 3, 2025 minute order; the December 18, 2025 dismissal order then granted NPR's motion to dismiss the complaint and reserved sanctions to a separate proceeding.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the orders identify nonexistent and misrepresented citations characteristic of AI hallucination output
- Sanction amount:
- $1,000 (final amount; reduced from initial sanction figure following sealed in-camera hearing)
What sanction did the court impose?
Motion to dismiss granted (Dec. 18, 2025). Memorandum opinion issued the same date. Following a sealed in-camera hearing on January 9, 2026 conducted at plaintiff's counsel's request with defendant's consent, Judge Howell reduced the monetary sanction to $1,000 payable immediately by plaintiff's attorney to defendant. The court cited Rubio v. District of Columbia, Mata v. Avancia, and Park v. Kim as controlling authority for Rule 11 sanctions where counsel fails to verify that every citation is real.
Why does Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc. is the leading D.D.C. AI-Rule 11 sanction case to date. Judge Howell’s October 15, 2025 show-cause minute order is unusual in two respects: first, it enumerated each defective citation by name and quoted the misrepresented proposition for which counsel had cited each authority, forcing a case-by-case defense rather than a general explanation; second, it cited the canonical D.D.C. AI-Rule 11 trio (Rubio v. District of Columbia, No. 23-cv-719 (RDM), 2024 WL 4957373 (D.D.C. Dec. 3, 2024); Mata v. Avancia, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024)) as controlling authority. Howell’s staged disposition (show-cause → strike → dismissal → sanction) is the procedural template other D.D.C. judges have followed. The December 18, 2025 dismissal order disposed of the merits; the sanction was finalized in a separate proceeding ending with a sealed in-camera hearing on January 9, 2026 at which the monetary figure was reduced to $1,000 payable immediately by plaintiff’s counsel (Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko) to defendant. Cross-reference: the court applied the same Rubio/Mata/Park framework that Judge Mehta applied in Rubio itself.
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.
- Track Judge Howell's chambers practice of issuing show-cause orders that enumerate each defective citation by name; the practice forces counsel into specific defense rather than general explanation, and the cases cited (Rubio; Mata; Park) are now the canonical D.D.C. AI-Rule 11 trio.
- When opposing a brief with suspect citations, prepare a misrepresentation analysis (not just a non-existence analysis); Howell's order lists eight cases that exist but were described as standing for propositions the cases do not contain, and the misrepresentation theory carried the same weight as outright fabrication.
- Document client-side AI-use protocols separately from associate-side protocols; Zhang's counsel was solo-practitioner-style (no firm-policy reform path), and the sealed in-camera hearing on the sanction amount suggests financial-hardship considerations factor into D.D.C. sanction calibration.
Sources
Primary sources
- The eight misrepresented authorities (Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist.; Robertson v. District of Columbia; Myers v. Alutiq; Lockhart v. Coastal Int'l Sec.; Bible Way Church v. Beards; Rodriguez v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings; Howard Univ. v. Best; Larijani v. Georgetown Univ.) are extracted from the show-cause order's docket text on CourtListener; page-level cite verification was not performed against the underlying brief.
- The initial monetary sanction figure (before reduction to $1,000 at the Jan. 9, 2026 sealed hearing) was not extracted to a sum certain for this entry; the Jan. 9, 2026 minute order describes the reduction without restating the predecessor amount.