774 F.Supp.3d 767
W.D. Va.2025Background
- Vladimir Kruglyak, a pro se plaintiff, cited fictitious cases and misrepresented case holdings in a reply brief filed in federal court.
- The court issued a show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) to determine if sanctions or contempt for litigation misconduct were warranted.
- Kruglyak responded, admitting the inclusion of false citations and mischaracterizations, explaining he relied on generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) for legal research due to limited access to traditional resources.
- Kruglyak asserted the errors were not intentional, and after learning about AI unreliability, ceased using AI for unverified caselaw and sought more credible research avenues.
- The defendant, Home Depot, did not respond to the court's order.
- The court decided not to impose monetary sanctions, but ordered Kruglyak to disclose any future AI-derived caselaw and to verify its accuracy, warning noncompliance could result in contempt or loss of pro se status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions should be imposed for use of fictitious/misrepresented case law | Kruglyak: Errors were not intentional; AI research tools caused mistakes; acted in good faith as a pro se litigant | Home Depot: Did not respond | No sanctions; negligence, not bad faith |
| Whether reliance on AI-generated legal research excuses inaccurate citations | Kruglyak: Lacked access to legal databases; trusted AI in good faith; immediately ceased after learning risks | Home Depot: Did not respond | Pro se status and lack of intent merit leniency |
| Whether Kruglyak should be allowed to amend his pleading to correct citations | Kruglyak: Requested permission to amend with accurate citations | Home Depot: Did not respond | Amendment request denied |
| What requirements apply to future uses of AI by pro se litigants | Kruglyak: Agreed to independently verify AI research | Home Depot: Did not respond | Must identify and verify all AI-derived citations going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Brubaker v. City of Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1991) (establishes requirement for objectively reasonable prefiling investigation under Rule 11)
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (attorney sanctioned for relying on AI-generated fictitious cases)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (Rule 11 sanctions serve to deter litigation abuse; broad court discretion)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se litigants entitled to liberal construction of pleadings)
- In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505 (4th Cir. 1990) (Rule 11 sanctions should be limited to what deters litigation misconduct)