United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2023 Submitted: December 15, 2023 Decided: January 30, 2024 No. 22-2057

MINHYE PARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID DENNIS KIM, Defendant-Appellee,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York No. 20CV02636, Pamela K. Chen, Judge.

Before: PARKER, NATHAN, and MERRIAM, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Minhye Park appeals from an August 25, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.) dismissing her action against Defendant-Appellee David Dennis Kim, pursuant to Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for her persistent and knowing violation of court orders. The record demonstrates Park’s sustained and willful intransigence in spite of repeated warnings that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the action. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of dismissal. We separately address the fact that Park’s counsel, Attorney Jae S. Lee, has admitted to citing a non-existent state court decision in her reply brief to this Court. Counsel reports that she relied on a generative artificial intelligence tool, ChatGPT, to identify precedent that might support her arguments, and did not read or otherwise confirm the validity of the (non-existent) decision she cited. Because this conduct falls well below the basic obligations of counsel, we refer Attorney Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel, and further ORDER Attorney Lee to furnish a copy of this decision to her client.

JAE S. LEE, JSL Law Offices P.C., Uniondale, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

ALEJANDRA R. GIL, Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendant- Appellee. PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Minhye Park appeals from the August 25, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Chen, J.) dismissing her action against Defendant-Appellee David Dennis Kim, pursuant to Rules 37 and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm the District Court’s judgment.

We separately address the conduct of Park’s counsel, Attorney Jae S. Lee. Lee’s reply brief in this case includes a citation to a non-existent case, which she

2 admits she generated using the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT. Because citation in a brief to a non-existent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel, we refer Attorney Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel, and further direct Attorney Lee to furnish a copy of this decision to her client, Plaintiff-Appellant Park.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review a district court’s imposition of sanctions for abuse of discretion.” Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Scivantage, 564 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009) (dismissal pursuant to Rule 37); Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212, 216 (2d Cir. 2014) (dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b)).

RULE 37 AND RULE 41(b)

Rule 37 provides: “If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery . . . the court whe