S.D. Cal.: Civil Standing Order (Cases Assigned to Judge Todd W. Robinson)
Judge Todd W. Robinson · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Civil Standing Order (Cases Assigned to Judge Todd W. Robinson)
- Order date
- September 16, 2024
Summary
Acknowledges that generative AI tools may produce filings 'replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law' if used without verification.
What does the order require?
- Acknowledges that generative AI tools may produce filings 'replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law' if used without verification.
- Failure to exercise due care in reviewing AI-assisted work product may violate Rule 11 and applicable practice standards.
- Attorneys and pro se litigants must conduct reasonable inquiry before filing; submissions must be 'well grounded in fact and legally tenable.'
- Failure to exercise due care may expose the filer to sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action.
- No separate disclosure declaration is required; the rule is a Rule 11 cautionary framing, not a disclosure mandate.
Practice areas: federal civil
What the order requires
Judge Robinson’s Civil Standing Order, Section III.D (“Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence”) takes a distinctly different approach from the C.D. Cal. chambers cluster. There is no separate disclosure declaration and no certification block to attach. Instead, the order is a Rule 11 cautionary framing: it acknowledges that generative AI tools can produce hallucinated citations, reminds counsel and pro se litigants of the reasonable-inquiry duty under Rule 11, and warns that failures may expose the filer to sanctions or other corrective or disciplinary action (citing a Second Circuit grievance-panel referral as an example).
The framing makes Robinson’s order useful as authority for the proposition that fabricated AI citations violate Rule 11 even absent an AI-specific disclosure rule, because the verification obligation is the operative duty regardless of whether the tool is human or machine.
Quotable lines
“Unqualified reliance on such tools may result in filings ‘replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law.’”
“Failure to exercise due care in reviewing and filing work product created with the assistance of generative AI tools may violate Rule 11 and other applicable standards of practice.”