E.D. Pa.: Section I.G.3 (Standing Order on Artificial Intelligence) of Judge Kelley B. Ho…

What the order requires

Judge Hodge’s order takes a light-touch approach distinct from the M.D. Pa. Certificate-of-Use template. It does not impose a separate disclosure declaration or certification requirement. Instead, it reminds counsel and pro se litigants that existing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b) and 26(g), plus all other relevant ethical rules, apply to AI-prepared filings. The verification obligation is anchored in Rule 11’s reasonable-inquiry duty rather than a chambers-specific mechanism.

For E.D. Pa. practitioners, the order is useful 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 underlying tool is human or machine.

R&G data correction

R&G’s AI Court Order Tracker mis-attributes this entry: the source URL field points to cacd.uscourts.gov (Central District of California) which is unrelated, and the panel attribution suggested a different judge in some readings. The actual order is Section I.G.3 of Judge Hodge’s E.D. Pa. judicial policies and procedures, available at hodpol.pdf on paed.uscourts.gov. R&G’s date (2024-05-13) also drifts from the document’s own revision marker (“Rev. 5/10/2024”); the 2024-05-10 date used here treats the document marker as authoritative.

Quotable line

“Anyone, counsel or pro se litigant, using Generative Artificial Intelligence (‘GAI’) in connection with the filing of a pleading, motion, or paper in this Court or the serving/delivering of a request, response, or objection to discovery must comply with Rule 11(b) and Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other relevant rule, including all applicable ethical rules.”

Primary source

Judge Hodge’s Judicial Policies and Procedures PDF, paed.uscourts.gov