Johnson v. Dunn

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: ANNA M. MANASCO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Citation: Johnson v. Dunn, 792 F.Supp.3d 1241 (N.D. Ala. 2025)
• Docket Number: Case No.: 2:21-cv-1701-AMM
• Decision Date: 23 July 2025
• Parties: Frankie JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson S. DUNN, et al., Defendants.

792 F.Supp.3d 1241

Frankie JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson S. DUNN, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 2:21-cv-1701-AMM

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Signed July 23, 2025

Anil A. Mujumdar, Birmingham, AL, Lana Alcorn Olson, M. Wesley Smithart, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Birmingham, AL, Gary Y. Gould, Jamila S. Mensah, Pro Hac Vice, Kelly Potter, Pro Hac Vice, Norton Rose Fulbright U.S. LLP, Houston, TX, Nandini Rao, Norton Rose Fulbright U.S. LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Aziz David Fawal, Butler Snow LLP, Birmingham, AL, Daniel James Chism, William R. Lunsford, Matthew B. Reeves, William J. Cranford III, Butler Snow LLP, Huntsville, AL, Michael B. Beers, Butler Snow LLC, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant Jefferson S. Dunn.

Tara Smelley Hetzel, Vania Latitia Hosea, Alabama Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants Gwendolyn Givens, Phyllis Morgan, Vencini Smith, Reginald Rambo, Trenton Matthews, Warren Cook, Justin Stevenson, Erich Hugh.

Terri Olive Tompkins, Christian Alexandra Montgomery, Rosen Hardwood, Tuscaloosa, AL, for Defendant Deaundra Johnson.

SANCTIONS ORDER

ANNA M. MANASCO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case is before the court because incarcerated Plaintiff Frankie Johnson accused Defendant Jefferson Dunn, the former Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, of fabricating citations to legal authorities in two motions. Docs. 187, 193. Three attorneys for Defendant Dunn (Matthew B. Reeves, William J. Cranford, and William R. Lunsford) confirmed in writing and at a hearing that the citations were hallucinations of a popular generative artificial intelligence ("AI") application, ChatGPT. See Docs. 194, 200. In simpler terms, the citations were completely made up.

The court must determine an appropriate sanction. Fabricating legal authority is serious misconduct that demands a serious sanction. In the court's view, it demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse. As a practical matter, time is telling us - quickly and loudly - that those sanctions are insufficient deterrents. In principle, they do not account for the danger that fake citations pose for the fair administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial system. And in any event, they have little effect when the lawyer's client (here, an Alabama government agency) learns of the attorney's misconduct and continues to retain him.

An appropriate and reasonable sanction must (1) have sufficient deterrent force to make this misuse of AI unprofitable for lawyers and litigants, (2) correspond to the extreme dereliction of professional responsibility that sham citations reflect (whether generated by artificial or human intelligence), and (3) effectively communicate that made-up authorities have no place in a court of law.

For the reasons explained below, the court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Mr. Reeves, Mr. Cranford, and Mr. Lunsford for making false statements to the court; ORDERS publication of this order to effectuate that reprimand; DISQUALIFIES them from further participation in this case; and REFERS this matter to the Alabama State Bar and other applicable licensing authorities.

In the light of the results of the independent investigation commissioned by the attorneys' law firm, the court exercises its discretion not to suspend them from practice in the Northern District of Alabama. The court RELEASES WITHOUT SANCTION attorneys Daniel J. Chism and Lynette E. Potter, and the law firm Butler Snow LLP ("Butler Snow") from disciplinary proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On May 7, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed a motion for leave to take the deposition of an incarcerated person under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), which is required to depose any incarcerated person. Doc. 174. The signature block of that motion contained the names of four attorneys from the Butler Snow law firm: William J. Cranford, William R. Lunsford, Matthew B. Reeves, and Daniel J. Chism. Id. at 4. Mr. Cranford electronically filed the motion with his filing credentials. Plaintiff Johnson, the incarcerated person at issue, objected to being deposed prior to receipt of certain documents from the Alabama Department of Corrections that were the subject of a motion to compel by him. Doc. 186 at 2; see also Doc. 169. All parties agreed that Plaintiff Johnson was due to be deposed; the dispute was simply about when (Defendant Dunn wanted to conduct the deposition the week of June 3rd and Plaintiff Johnson wanted sometime later, after receipt of the documents at issue in his motion to compel).

On May 8, 2025, Defendant Dunn sought leave of court to file a motion to compel interrogatory answers and document production from Plaintiff Johnson. Doc. 178. The next day, the court granted that leave. Doc. 179. At 11:21 a.m.¹ on May 12, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed an unopposed motion for excess pages as to the forthcoming motion to compel. Doc. 180. The court granted the motion for excess pages at 12:39 p.m. Doc. 181. Then, at 4:21 p.m. on May 12, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed his motion to compel. Doc. 182. Four Butler Snow attorneys appeared on the signature block of that motion: Mr. Cranford, Mr. Lunsford, Mr. Reeves, and Ms. Potter. Id. at 20. Ms. Potter has not entered a notice of appearance in this case.

Plaintiff Johnson's motion to compel became fully briefed on May 12, 2025. See Doc. 183. On May 14, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Johnson's motion to compel. Doc. 184.

The next day, Plaintiff Johnson filed a response to the motion for leave to depose him. Doc. 186. Plaintiff Johnson objected to a deposition the week of June 3rd on several grounds, including that counsel for Defendant Dunn appeared to have fabricated citations to legal authority in his motion for leave and motion to compel, "possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence." Id. at 1.

In total, there were five problematic citations across two motions:

• Defendant Dunn cited "United States v. Baker, 539 F. App'x 937, 943 (11th Cir. 2013)" as "confirming broad discovery rights under Rules 26 and 30." Doc. 174 at 2. As Plaintiff Johnson pointed out, "[w]hile United States v. Baker, 529 Fed. Appx. 987 (11th Cir. 2013) is an actual case, it is an appeal challenging a criminal's sentencing enhancement." Doc. 186 at 2. And the case found in the Federal Appendix numbers cited by Defendant Dunn does not discuss discovery. See Williams v. Morahan, 539 F. App'x 934 (11th Cir. 2013).

• Defendant Dunn cited "Kelley v. City of Birmingham, 2021 WL 1118031, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 24, 2021)" for the proposition that the district court "refus[ed] to delay deposition based on unrelated discovery issues." Doc. 174 at 2. The only case with that style which Plaintiff Johnson (and the court) could find was an Alabama Court of Appeals case from 1939 that dealt with a traffic offense. Doc. 186 at 3; see Kelley v. City of Birmingham, 28 Ala. App. 644, 189 So. 921 (Ala. Ct. App. 1939).

• Defendant Dunn cited "Greer v. Warden, FCC Coleman I, 2020 WL 3060362, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2020)" as "rejecting inmate's request to delay deposition until additional discovery was completed." Doc. 174 at 2. This case does not exist, nor does a case exist with a similar citation for that proposition of law. See Doc. 186 at 3.

• Defendant Dunn cited "Wilson v. Jackson, 2006 WL 8438651, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2006)" with the parenthetical that it was an opinion "granting [a] Rule 30(a)(2)(B) motion and finding no good cause to delay deposition of incarcerated plaintiff." Doc. 174 at 2. There is no such case, and that Westlaw number directs to a maritime personal injury case that does not discuss discovery. See Douglas v. Ingram Barge Co., No. CV 3:04-0383, 2006 WL 8438651 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 15, 2006); see also Doc. 186 at 4.

• Defendant Dunn cited "Williams v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., No. 3:05-cv-479, 2006 WL 3343787, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006)" to support the statement that, "General objections are not useful and will not be considered by the Court. Objections should be specific and supported by a detailed explanation." Doc. 182 at 13. Though a case with that style exists, no case with that combination of style and proposition exists. See Williams v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., No. 3:05-cv-00479-VMC-MCR (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2013); see also Doc. 186 at 4.

At 12:14 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2025, the court issued a show cause order noting that "[i]n the light of the seriousness of the accusation, the court ha[d] conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail," and ordering the signatories of Defendant Dunn's motion for leave, and the Butler Snow law firm, "to show good cause, if there be any, why they should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the court's inherent authority, Local Rule 83.1(f), and/or Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 for making false statements of fact or law to the court, not later than 3:00 PM Central Daylight Time on Monday, May 19, 2025." Doc. 187 at 1-2 (emphasis omitted). The court also set a show cause hearing for 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time on Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at the Hugo Black United States Courthouse. Id. at 2.

Three hours after the order to show cause issued, Mr. Lunsford and Mr. Chism filed a motion to be excused from the show cause hearing. Doc. 188. Mr. Chism and Mr. Lunsford represented that "[n]either [of them] participated in any way in the drafting or filing of the Motion for Leave to Depose Incarcerated Persons," and that Mr. Lunsford "must be in Macon, Georgia to [ ] prepare for and attend a previously set evidentiary hearing before the U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia." Id. at 2.

The court denied their requested excuse at 6:39 p.m. that same day:

...