Champagne v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Champagne v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedSeptember 2, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01663

StatusUnknown

This text of Champagne v. Commissioner of Social Security (Champagne v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Champagne v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KATARENA CHAMPAGNE, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C24-1663-SKV 10 v. ORDER RE: BRIEFING 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 A preliminary review of the briefing submitted by counsel for Plaintiff raises a concern 15 that it contains unverified generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) outputs. See, e.g., Dkt. 9 at 8 16 (quoted language does not appear in Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001)). 17 Due to that concern, and with consideration of the issues identified in Mavy v. Comm’r of Soc. 18 Sec. Admin., No. CV-25-00689-PHX-KML (ASB), 2025 WL 2355222 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2025), 19 counsel for Plaintiff is herein ORDERED to re-file Opening and Reply briefs within seven (7) 20 days of the date of this Order. Before re-filing, counsel shall thoroughly review the briefing and 21 correct any hallucinated case citations or quotes and any other AI-related errors. Although the 22 Court does not anticipate that any such corrections would necessitate a response, the 23 Commissioner may, if needed, re-file a Responsive Brief within seven (7) days of the re-filed 1 Opening and Reply briefs. The Court will also entertain any motion by the Commissioner for 2 costs associated with a re-filed Responsive brief. 3 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2025. 4 A 5 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KATARENA CHAMPAGNE, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C24-1663-SKV 10 v. ORDER RE: BRIEFING 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 A preliminary review of the briefing submitted by counsel for Plaintiff raises a concern 15 that it contains unverified generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) outputs. See, e.g., Dkt. 9 at 8 16 (quoted language does not appear in Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001)). 17 Due to that concern, and with consideration of the issues identified in Mavy v. Comm’r of Soc. 18 Sec. Admin., No. CV-25-00689-PHX-KML (ASB), 2025 WL 2355222 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2025), 19 counsel for Plaintiff is herein ORDERED to re-file Opening and Reply briefs within seven (7) 20 days of the date of this Order. Before re-filing, counsel shall thoroughly review the briefing and 21 correct any hallucinated case citations or quotes and any other AI-related errors. Although the 22 Court does not anticipate that any such corrections would necessitate a response, the 23 Commissioner may, if needed, re-file a Responsive Brief within seven (7) days of the re-filed 1 Opening and Reply briefs. The Court will also entertain any motion by the Commissioner for 2 costs associated with a re-filed Responsive brief. 3 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2025. 4 A 5 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Champagne v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/champagne-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack