Are you just catching up on the bonkers story about the lawyer using ChatGPT for federal court filings? This is a thread for you.

Our dramatis personae - some lawyers in federal court, in a lawsuit over a personal injury on an airplane.
Bartholomew Banino (BB) represents the airline.

Peter LoDuca (PL) and Steven Schwartz (SS) represent the injured person.

Here's the docket (via @questauthority) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=asc

Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

CourtListener
The case is in federal court, and they're arguing over whether it should be there or in state court. The airline has filed its motion to dismiss on Jan. 13. On Jan. 18, the plaintiff asks for more time to reply (#19). The judge gives it to them. (#20).

On March 1st, PL files that reply/opposition to the motion to dismiss.

It cites a bunch of cases in support of its argument! They seem quite convincing - there's some state courts holding that state courts can decide international airline accidents. (See pages 4 and 5). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.21.0.pdf

Transcript Order – #663 in In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal., 3:21-md-02981) – CourtListener.com

Transcript Order

CourtListener
The defendants file their response. In it, there's a footnote where they flag that they can't find the cases that PL cited to, or they don't say what PL said they said. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/24/mata-v-avianca-inc/
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion – #24 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . Document filed by Avianca, Inc...(Banino, Bartholomew) (Entered: 03/15/2023)

CourtListener

On April 11, the court orders PL to produce copies of the cases. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/25/mata-v-avianca-inc/ Likewise, on April 12, the judge asks for another case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/27/mata-v-avianca-inc/

(This is not necessarily so unusual - some judges have local rules requiring litigants to attach unpublished cases to filings to save the court from having to go find them.)

Order – #25 in Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 1:22-cv-01461) – CourtListener.com

ORDER: By April 18, 2022, Peter Lo Duca, counsel of record for plaintiff, shall file an affidavit annexing copies of the following cases cited in his submission to this Court: as set forth herein. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 41 (b), Fed. R. Civ. P. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 4/11/2023) (ama) (Entered: 04/11/2023)

CourtListener
@kendraserra I am not a lawyer but would it not be normal to have copies of the cases ready to go to save time? Is that why the week delay was so weird?
@ouinne @kendraserra Sometimes we have all our cited cases already saved as PDFs, but other times we've just worked from the online source directly, xo not having them ready to file isn't that unusual. However, it doesn't take a week to type a cite into an actual legit case law database and save each as a PDF! Still, a week isn't that long in litigation time, really, especially when juggling multiple cases, so the extra time *on its own* doesn't strike me as particularly extraordinary.