Elizabeth Bailey
@elizabethbailey.bsky.social
1.8K followers 1.9K following 613 posts
Trial Lawyer. Tweets (and typos) mine/not legal advice! Certified to operate a forklift, but pretty terrible at it. Follows/reskeets are not endorsements.
Trial Lawyer. Tweets (and typos) mine/not legal advice! Certified to operate a forklift, but pretty terrible at it. Follows/reskeets are not endorsements.
![Plaintiffs countered that the 21-day challenge deadline re-set when it filed an amended complaint. The Court had this to say: “Even assuming AAP is right that a fresh 21-day period began with the filing of the answer to the amended complaint (an issue I do not decide), I exercise my discretion to deny the motion to strike.” Id. at *2 (emphasis added). In other words, Affordable Aerial Photography is expressly silent on the question of timeliness. Which makes this line from Shuttleslide’s response deeply perplexing: “Pursuant to Affordable Aerial Photo., Inc. at 2, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is untimely.” [ECF No. 109 at 6]. Given Affordable Aerial did not decide the issue, any finding on timeliness in this case could not be “pursuant to” that holding.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreicglwgmpm3od6adgtgvjhdgeuu4mu255q6tsukzxti7mm5rtk2wd4)
![One final observation, regrettably necessary in the age of AI. It did not escape the Court’s notice that Shuttleslide’s Response is titled “CoCounsel Skill Results.”2 The Court will not, at this juncture, draw a causal link between this apparent use of AI and counsel’s mistaken reliance on Affordable Aerial Photography. But we caution counsel that, while AI has no Rule 11 obligations, the attorney who relies on it does. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b) (“Representations to the Court. By presenting to the Court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney . . . certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge . . . formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law[.]”); ByoPlanet Int’l, LLC v. Johansson, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2025) (discussing Rule 11 sanctions and observing “[a]ttorneys using AI tools without checking on the accuracy of their output are responsible for the consequences of incorporating inaccurate information into their work product”).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreidobvnmzb6qmv2p5tlrpeq72fdx2b5psarvaj7wqnu76ztv2j7f2m)
