Where a plaintiff’s former counsel has objected to a U.S. magistrate judge’s order allowing the plaintiff to move for sanctions if counsel does not allow the plaintiff to access her case files in short order, the objection should be overruled for failure to identify any part of the order that is contrary to law.
“Pro se Plaintiff Natashah Al-Ali and her former counsel, Carla D. Aikens, filed objections (ECF Nos. 50, 51) to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for withdrawal of attorney and denying Plaintiff’s motions for judicial intervention and an evidentiary hearing. …
“This is an employment discrimination suit. …
“Ms. Aikens’ objection is limited to a sentence in Judge Stafford’s order. The order states, ‘If Aikens has not permitted Al-Ali to access her case files, or does not allow such access in short order, Al-Ali may move the Court for sanctions under M.R.P.C. 1.16(d) and RI-392.’ … Ms. Aikens objects to the inclusion of this sentence and requests that the Court strike that portion of the order or, in the alternative, requests ‘clarification that the June 8, 2026 Order makes no finding that counsel withheld Plaintiff’s file, no finding that counsel violated MRPC 1.16(d) or RI-392, no finding that sanctions proceedings are warranted, and no authorization for Plaintiff to pursue sanctions against former counsel without a properly filed and served motion identifying specific non-work-product materials allegedly requested and not provided.’ …
“This objection is overruled as Ms. Aikens has not identified ‘any part of the order that … is contrary to law.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). As recognized by Ms. Aikens’ objection, the sentence is ‘framed conditionally’ and does not set forth any findings. …Although Ms. Aikens argues that the sentence ‘could be read as an invitation to assess sanctions without the process required before sanctions may be imposed,’ … that interpretation is not justified considering that it is a conditional sentence with no findings. Further, the sentence in the order cannot be read as authorizing sanctions proceedings without giving Ms. Aikens a full opportunity to respond.
“Ms. Aikens’ objection is overruled. …
“As set forth previously in this opinion, Plaintiff’s objections contained factitious citations. These factitious citations appear to be created by generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) tools. …
“The Court warns Plaintiff that, in the future, even one factitious citation will not be tolerated and that she may be sanctioned if future filings contain factitious citations, including but not limited to striking of filings or monetary penalties. The Court warns Plaintiff that factitious citations include case citations to nonexistent cases, but also case citations that, while real, do not stand for their asserted proposition. Plaintiff has an obligation to ensure that she does not submit any factitious citations in the future. …
“Carla D. Aikens’ objections (ECF No. 50) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff Al-Ali’s objections (ECF No. 51) are OVERRULED.
“Plaintiff Al-Ali is warned that future filings with factitious citations will not be tolerated and that she may face sanctions, such as striking of filings or monetary penalties, if future filings contain factitious citations.”