Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will issued a letter and separate order Friday denying petitioner Daniel Jaiyong An's motion to compel discovery and ordering that any future court filings he prepares using GenAI must be accompanied by a certification disclosing such.
Specifically, Vice Chancellor Will ordered that the certification must include a sworn statement by An confirming that GenAI was used to prepare the filing, identifying the GenAI tool or platform that was used and which specific paragraphs or sections of the filing were prepared using the technology, and confirming that any text in the filing prepared using GenAI had undergone a human review for accuracy and completeness.
In her letter, Vice Chancellor Will also warned An that his use of GenAI thus far in the action is sanctionable due to the inaccuracies it has caused in his filings.
"There are several incorrect citations to case law in the [motion to compel discovery]. Some of the authorities do not stand for the cited propositions. Others are quoted for statements they do not contain," the letter said.
The vice chancellor said she suspects that the AI program An used may have "hallucinated" — a phenomenon in which a generative AI chatbot or computer vision tool "perceives patterns or objects that are nonexistent or imperceptible to human observers, creating outputs that are nonsensical or altogether inaccurate," the letter said.
The vice chancellor noted that the use of GenAI in legal work is not "inherently problematic," as it can streamline legal research, assist in drafting documents and lower barriers to justice. However, she added that the technology also "carries significant risks to the legal system if it is used carelessly."
"The [motion to compel discovery] exemplifies the potential downsides," she said. "Specifically, the petitioner failed to ensure the accuracy of material prepared with GenAI and submitted to the court. 'Quite obviously, many harms flow from such deception — including wasting the opposing party's time and money, the court's time and resources, and reputational harm to the legal system (to name a few).'"
She also acknowledged that An is representing himself pro se and that Delaware judges have traditionally treated such individuals with "some degree of latitude."
Because of that, Vice Chancellor Will said she would have been inclined to deny An's motion to compel discovery without prejudice, but because he "doubled down" in his reply and insisted that there were not as many inaccuracies in his motion as the court was saying, she decided to deny the motion permanently.
"The petitioner should consider himself warned," the letter said. "Although I am not sanctioning the petitioner today, he must ensure that every future filing satisfies his obligations to this court, including that the filing is truthful, accurate, and cites to legitimate authorities. … The petitioner's failure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, stricken filings, or the dismissal of this suit."
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday.
An filed the appraisal action against respondent Archblock Inc. in February 2024, alleging that he was an Archblock shareholder and became eligible for an appraisal of the fair value of his shares under Delaware General Corporation Law when the company completed a redomestication merger in December 2023.
An is represented pro se.
Archblock is represented by A. Thompson Bayliss, Ben Lucy and G. Mason Thomson of Abrams & Bayliss LLP.
The case is Daniel Jaiyong An vs. Archblock Inc., case number 2024-0102, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
--Editing by Rich Mills.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
