Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Collier et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISIONAT DAYTON
KETTERING ADVENTIST
HEALTHCARE, d/b/a KETTERING
HEALTH NETWORK,
Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant,
V.
SANDRA COLLIER, e?5/.,
Defendants/Counter-
Plaintiffs,
V.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, PC,
et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-cv-273
Judge Walter H. Rice
Mag. Judge Caroline H. Gentry
ORDER FINDING THAT MARY T. SCOTT, ESQ., AND H. LEON HEWITT, ESQ., ARE
IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT AND HAVE VIOLATED FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 11(b), AND, PURSUANT TO RULE 11(c), IMPOSING MONETARY
SANCTIONS OF $5, 000. 00 AGAINST SCOTT AND $2, 500. 00 AGAINST HEWITT, TO
BE PAID TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF ENTRY;
REQUESTINGTHE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF OHIO TO
DETERMINE WHETHER SANCTION FOR CONTEMPT IS NECESSARY; MOTION TO
DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS SANDRA LEE COLLIER AND
SCOTT (DOC. #13) IS STRICKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING;
UNDERSIGNED SHALL MAKE REPORT TO SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OFFICE OF
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; NOTICE OF RECUSAL AND REQUEST THAT CHIEF
JUDGE REASSIGN CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO IN THE CINCINNATI OR COLUMBUS SEAT OF COURT
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 1 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

On January 2, 2026, this Court issued a lengthy Decision and Entry detailing
more than a dozen fraudulent citations made by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Mary
T. Scott, Esq., both pro se and as former counsel for co-Defendant/Counter-
Plaintiff Sandra Lee Collier, and/or by H. Lean Hewitt, Esq., current counsel for
Collier. (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2020-26). These fraudulent citations were made by
Scott in Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #13) and Reply in support of
same (Doc. #69), signed by Scott alone, and Collier and Scott's memorandum
contra the Motion to Dismiss ofThird-Party Defendants Epstein Becker & Green
P. C., James Petrie, Jill Bigler, and Christopher Page McGinnis (collectively "EBG
Defendants"). (Memo. in Opp., Doc. #93) (collectively "the Filings"). From its
review of the citations, the Court concluded that Scott and Hewitt had violated
Rule 11 's requirement that an attorney signing a filing "certif[y] that to the best of
the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances!, ] the claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law "
FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2).
The Court also noted that, despite being put on notice by Plaintiff Kettering
Adventist Healthcare, d/b/a Kettering Health Network ("Kettering") on September
15, 2025, that at least three cited cases in the Motion to Dismiss "did not state
what Collier and Scott represented that they did. Collier and Scott cited those very
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 2 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

same cases for the very same propositions of law in their later Reply. " (Doc. #113,
PAGEID 2026, citing Kettering Memo. in Opp., Doc. #44, PAGEID 1215, 1218, 1220,
nn. 7, 9-10). Finally, despite Scott and Hewitt having been on notice for more than
three months and one month, respectively, that they had submitted phantom or
wholly inaccurate citations, neither Scott nor Hewitt acknowledged their
transgressions. The Court concluded that, by failing to do so, Scott and Hewitt
had violated Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3. 3. (a)(1). (Id. at PAGEID2026-27)
In light of the above, the Court ordered Scott and Hewitt to show cause, no
later than January 16, 2026, why they should not be sanctioned for violating
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and not be held in contempt of this Court,
and why Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss should not be overruled with
prejudice as sanction. (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2035-36). The Court further indicated
that, upon resolution of the Show Cause Order, the undersigned would refer Scott
and Hewitt to the appropriate disciplinary committee and recuse himself from
further proceedings. (Id. at PAGEID 2036).
On January 15, 2026, Scott filed her Response, stating that she used
generative artificial intelligence ("Al") in research "for preliminary case
identification. At the time, I mistakenly believed those tools were sufficiently
reliable for that limited purpose. . .. Regardless of the toot used, the duty to verify
citations rests entirely with counsel. I failed to satisfy that duty here. " (Scott
Resp., Doc. #114, PAGEID 2039). She also concedes that Kettering made her
aware of several inaccurate citations, but that she did not "pause, reassess, and
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 3 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

independently verify the authority before filing again" using those fabricated
citations, commonly known as "Al hallucinations, " in Collier and Scott's Reply.
(Id. }. She acknowledges that, even though she did not fabricate factual assertions,
her failure to acknowledge and correct the Al-hallucinated citations in the Filings
violated her duty of candor. {Id. at PAGEID 2039-40).
On January 16, 2026, Hewitt filed his Response, conceding that, although "I
joined the case late, [I] failed to independently verify the presented case law
citations, and that failure fell below the standards of integrity, diligence, and care
owed to this Court. " (Hewitt Resp., Doc. #117, PAGEID 2046). He states that the
fabricated citations were drafted by Scott, but that he erred in relying on those
citations without verification before appending his name to the memorandum
contra the EBG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, {/d. at PAGEID2046-47). As
remediation, Hewitt intends to engage "additional experienced litigators for
independent review where appropriate. " (Id. at PAGEID 2047).
While Hewitt and Scott were making timely and contrite filings to the Court,
including intended affirmative steps to prevent future errors (Doc. #114, PAGEID
2040; Doc. #117, PAGEID2047), the omnibus case was set for mediation before
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr., on January 28, 2026. (Mag. Judge Order,
Doc. #119, PAGEID 2056). 1 On January 21, 2026, just days after promising the
1 Magistrate Judge Silvain, "with recognition of the sensitive nature of the mediation proceedings,
. .. direct[ed] that this Order be filed under seal. " (Doc. #119, PAGEID 2058). However, Magistrate
Judge Silvain correctly determined that the "possible sanctions for misconduct" exception to this
Court's local rule on nondisclosure of mediation statements applies (id., quoting S. D. OHIO Civ. R.
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 4 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

undersigned that they would take affirmative steps to ensure that all citations in
future filings would be accurate, Hewitt and Scott submitted mediation statements
to Magistrate Judge Silvain on behalf of Collier and Scott herself, respectively.
(Doc. #119, PAGEID 2058). Those statements were rife with "patent
misstatements and mischaracterizationsofthe law. " (Id. }. Consequently,
Magistrate Judge Silvain canceled the mediation and referred the matter back to
the undersigned for further proceedings. (Id. at PAGEID 2071-72).
The breadth and depth of Scott and Hewitt's continued malfeasance leave
the Court almost at a loss for words. The undersigned expresses his deep
appreciation for Magistrate Judge Silvain's exhaustive discussion of Scott and
Hewitt's misrepresentations in their mediation statements (Doc. #119, PAGEID
2059-71), incorporates that discussion by reference, and summarizes the
discussion of their citations as follows:
Hewitt: (1) Two cases that do not exist in the citation formats
provided by Hewitt; (2) Three cases that are "completely unrelated to
[Hewitt's] relevant assertions[, ]" and in no way stand for the
propositions for which he cites them; and (3) Eight cases that, as cited
by Hewitt, "exaggerate[] or misappl[y] the law throughout [Collier's]
mediation statement. " (Doc. #119, PAGEID2059-67).
Scott: (1) Four cases unrelated or contrary to the propositions for
which she cites them; and (2) Five cases for which Scott misstates the
law. (Doc. #119, PAGEID 2067-71).
Notably, in its January 2, 2026, Decision, the Court observed that Collier and Scott
had relied on Kenty v. Transamerica Prem. Ins. Co. for the proposition that
16. 3(c)(3)(C)), and the undersigned is convinced that the magnitude of Al misuse by attorneys
requires public disclosure. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTSthe Clerk of Court to unseal the Order
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 5 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

"[wjhere claims are based on enforceable legal rights, settlement demands are
privileged. " (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2024, quoting Kenty, 72 Ohio St. 3d 415, 419
(1995); Collier and Scott Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #13, PAGEID 510). However, the
Court further noted that "nothing resembling the purported language quoted by
Collier and Scott appears in" Kenty. (/d). Incredibly, despite this admonition
from the Court, Scott cited Kenfyfor that very same proposition in her mediation
statement. (Doc. #119, PAGEID 2068).
Magistrate Judge Silvain's Order reinforces the Court's previous
conclusion: that Scott and Hewitt's fabricated citations constitute the most
egregious, inexplicable, and repeated violations of Rule 11(b) by any attorneys
that have ever appeared before the undersigned. (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2027-28).
Moreover, despite multiple opportunities since Kettering filed its memorandum
contra on September 15, 2025, for Scott and Hewitt to acknowledge their
transgressions, it took a lengthy investigation and subsequent decision by the
Court before they did so. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, at the very time Scott
and Hewitt were promising the undersigned that they would not fabricate cases or
misstate the law, they were doing just that in this very case to the undersigned's
colleague. In sum, Scott and Hewitt's Responses reinforce the Court's conclusion
that they violated both Rule 11(b)(2) and Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct
3. 3. (a)(1), and that the Court is warranted in imposing sanctions against Scott and
Hewitt. FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(1). Also, Scott and Hewitt's misrepresentations to
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 6 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Magistrate Judge Silvain compel the undersigned to find Scott and Hewitt in
contempt of this Court.
"The court has available a variety of possible sanctions to impose for
violations, such as striking the offending paper; issuing an admonition, reprimand,
or censure; requiring participation in seminars or other educational programs;
ordering a fine payable to the court; [and/or] referring the matter to disciplinary
authorities!. ]" FED. R. CIV. P. 11 advisory cmte. note to 1993am. The Court
concludes that overruling with prejudice Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. #13), as previously contemplated (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2035-36), while severe,
is still "limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable
conductby others similarly situated. " FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(4). However, such
sanction would prejudice Collier, who should not be penalized. Thus, the Court
orders Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss stricken without prejudice to refiling
before the successor judge with accurate citations.
The imposition of sanctions for misuse of generative Al is relatively new;
for instance, Mata v. Avianca, Inc., one of the first significant federal cases on the
topic, was not published until June 22, 2023. 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S. D. N. Y. 2023).
However, Westlaw lists Mata as having been cited in ^05 cases since then, which
reflects the proliferation of generative Al, its infiltration into legal writing, and its
repeated misuse by attorneys. The Mata court aptly explains the harm
perpetrated by Scott and Hewitt, and why sanctions are appropriate:
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 7 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions. The
opposing party wastes time and money in exposing the deception.
The Court's time is taken from other important endeavors. The client
may be deprived of arguments based on authentic judicial
precedents. There is potential harm to the reputation of judges and
courts whose names are falsely invoked as authors of the bogus
opinions and to the reputation of a party attributed with fictional
conduct. It promotes cynicism about the legal profession and the
American judicial system. And a future litigant may be tempted to
defy a judicial ruling by disingenuously claiming doubt about its
authenticity.
678 F. Supp. 3d at 448-49 (footnote omitted).
The court in Wac/swoth v. Walmart, in imposing monetary sanctions against
the attorneys who submitted Al-hallucinated caselaw, noted that, by February 24,
2025, the date of publication, "[i]t is .. . well-known in the legal community that Al
resources generate fake cases. " 348 F. R. D. 489, 497 (D. Wyo. 2025). As evidenced
by Wadsworth being cited in 61 cases since publication, by the time Collier and
Scott filed the Motion to Dismiss in August 2025, every licensed attorney knew or
should have reasonably known that relying on generative Al for research would
likely result in a filing containing Al hallucinations. The volume of subsequent
cases citing Mata and Wadsworth reinforce this Court's conclusion: that the
problem of attorneys submitting hallucinated citations is rapidly worsening, and is
one of the biggest threats currently facing federal civil litigation. Importantly, the
January 2, 2026, Decision made clear that the Court's expectation of accurate
citations has no exception for generative Al.
Courts have imposed monetary sanctions for attorneys filing Al-
hallucinated citations ranging between $1, 000 and $5, 000. Wadsworth, 348 F. R. D.
8
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 8 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

at 497 (collecting cases), 498. In imposing $3, 000 and $1, 000 fines on the drafting
and co-signing attorneys, respectively, the i/yacfsworth court noted that both
attorneys were "forthcoming, honest, and apologetic about their conduct. They
also took steps to remediate the situation prior to the potential issuance of
sanctions!. ]" However, the attorneys were also "attorneys at a prominent
national law firm with presumably deep resources" and access to Lexis or
Westlaw. Id. For the drafting attorney, the court also considered "the number of
hallucinated cases in the filing compared to real cases" and "the fact that
attorneys have been on notice of generative Al's issues in hallucinating cases for
quite some time. " Id. at 498.
As discussed in the Court's January 2, 2026, Decision, Scott cited at least
twelve cases that either do not exist or do not remotely stand for the purported
propositions of law. (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2021-26). The volume of fabricated
citations rendered the Court unable to discern "whether [any of the cases cited by
Collier and Scott] exist at all and have any relevance whatsoever to the argument
Collier and Scott are making. " [Id. at PAGEID 2029). Nothing in Scott's response
causes the Court to alter this conclusion. Moreover, unlike in Wadsworth, Scott
did not notify the Court of her errors prior to the issuance of the Show Cause
Order. Rather, it bears repeating that, even after being notified by Kettering of the
nonexistent or inaccurate citations in Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss, Scott
recited at least three fabricated citations for the exact same incorrect propositions
in their Reply. (Doc. #113, PAGEID 2026). Finally, and most importantly, Scott
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 9 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

has now been caught misstating the law four times-b\/ Kettering, the EBG
Defendants, the undersigned, and Magistrate Judge Silvain, respectively-in a
case that is barely six months old
Finally, even though neither Kettering nor the EBG Defendants specifically
moved for sanctions with respect to Scott and Hewitt's fabrications and
misstate me nts, among the "harms that flow from the submission of fake
opinions" is that "[t]he Court's time is taken from other important endeavors."
Wadsworth, 348 F. R. D. at 498 (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Mata,
678 F. Supp. 3d at 448; see also Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. 354, 370 (Md. Ct. App.
2025) (Counsel submitting fake opinions "also required this Court to take time to
try to find the fake cases cited in [the party's] brief, and then research how other
courts have dealt with situations involving similar attorney misconduct, diverting
judicial resources from other pressing work. "). Since November 13, 2025, when
the EBG Defendants filed their reply memorandum detailing Scott and Hewitt's
misconduct (Doc. #97), the Court has spent in excess of seventy-five hours
addressing this specific issue. In sum, the factors in this case weigh in favor of
imposing a sanction at the top end of the range discussed in Wadsworth. Thus,
the Court imposes a monetary sanction of $5, 000 against Scott, payable to the
Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days of entry.
In imposing a fine of $1, 000 against the co-signing attorney, the Wadsworth
court noted that, although he was significantly less culpable than the drafting
attorney, the co-signing attorney still violated Rule 11 by signing the filing with
10
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 10 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

fabricated citations. 348 F. R. D. at 498. The court further concluded that the co-
signing attorney violated his "nondelegable duty to ensure a motion is supported
by existing law. " Id. Here, Hewitt had not appeared in the case when Scott filed
Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss and Reply memorandum containing the
hallucinated citations. Nonetheless, had he read Kettering's memorandum contra
Collier and Scott's Motion while getting up to speed, he would have found out
about the phantom citations and could have alerted Scott and the Court. At the
very least, he would have known to check the cases cited by Scott carefully before
signing the memorandum contrathe EBG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
#93); by signing without doing so, Hewitt violated both Rule 11 and his
nondelegable duty to Collier-a client who, unlike the co-signing attorney in
Wadsworth, he represented independently of the drafting attorney, Scott.
Moreover, Hewitt also did not inform the Court of his transgression prior to the
Court's January 2, 2026, Decision.
Finally, despite Hewitt's representations to the Court on January 16, 2026
(Doc. #117), and despite the importance of the mediation statement to resolving
the case for Collier, Hewitt could not even be bothered to check whether the cases
he cited existed, much less whether his citations were accurate. Accordingly, the
Court imposes a sanction of $2, 500, payable to the Clerk of Court within thirty (30)
days of entry. The combined sanction amount of $7, 500-$100 per hour that the
Court spent addressing this issue-is more than reasonable to address the harm
and resultant reallocation of judicial resources.
11
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 11 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

As discussed above, the Rules Advisory Committee has long contemplated
"referring the matter to disciplinary authorities" as a sanction for violating Rule
11. FED. R. CIV. P. 11 advisory cmte. note to 1993am. Scott and Hewitt's Responses
to the Show Cause Order do nothing to alter the Court's previous conclusion: that
Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss, Reply in support of same, and
memorandum contrathe EBG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss constitute the most
egregious violations of Rule 11 the undersigned has seen in his forty-six years on
the federal bench. Moreover, Scott and Hewitt's failure to notify the tribunal of
the fabricated citations once Kettering and the EBG Defendants made them aware
constitutes a clear violation of Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 3. 3. (a)(1).
Finally, Scott and Hewitt's misrepresentations to Magistrate Judge Silvain-less
than three weeks after the Court's January 2, 2026, Decision-raise grave
concerns as to whether either Scott or Hewitt should remain active members in
good standing in the bar of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Ohio. 2 Given
that the State of Ohio exercises plenary oversight of the professional conduct of
2 Indeed, on February 10, 2018, Scott filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority, purportedly
"identifying controlling authority supporting the legal propositions already pleaded[. ]" (Doc. #118,
PAGEID2049). However, several of the cases cited therein (id. at PAGEID2050-54) are the exact
same cases cited by Scott or Hewitt in their mediation statements, and that the Magistrate Judge
correctly concluded were misstatements of the law. Even if all citations had been accurate,
however, the timing of the Notice-nearlyfive months after Kettering warned Scott and Collier
about the improper citations in their Motion to Dismiss-would have been too little, too late.
Additionally, as the instant Order was being finalized, Kettering filed a Notice (Doc. #120) and
supporting documentation (Doc. #120-1) that raise serious concerns as to whether Scott has
continued to de facto represent Collier in violation of this Court's September 19, 2025,
Disqualification Order. (Tr., Doc. #63). In its Notice, Kettering further asserts that Scott made
numerous false representations of fact and misrepresented propositions of law. [Id. at PAGEID
2076-78 (citations omitted)). The Chief Judge may consider Kettering's Notice and any response
made by Scott in evaluating whether further sanction for contempt of court is warranted.
12
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 12 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

attorneys admitted in Ohio, OHIO R. PROF. COND. 8. 5(a), the undersigned concludes
that the Supreme Court of Ohio's Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") is best-
equipped to handle the violations of Ohio rules. Consequently, the Court will refer
Scott and Hewitt's conduct to the ODC.
For the foregoing reasons, Scott and Hewitt ARE FOUND to be in contempt
of this Court and ARE FOUND to have violated Rule 11 (b). Pursuant to Rule 11 (c),
Collier and Scott's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #13) is STRICKEN WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to refiling, Scott is ASSESSED a monetary sanction of $5, 000, and
Hewitt is ASSESSED a monetary sanction of $2, 500, both payable to the Clerk of
Court within THIRTY (30) days of entry. The Court REQUESTS that the Chief
Judge for the Southern District of Ohio determine whether sanction for contempt
of Court is necessary beyond what the undersigned under Rule 11. The Court
shall notify the ODC of Scott and Hewitt's conduct via letter, enclosing copies of:
(a) the January 2, 2026, Decision; (b) Magistrate Judge Silvain's February 19, 2026,
Order; and (c) the instant Order
The undersigned hereby RECUSES himself from further proceedings in this
matter. The undersigned further REQUESTS that the Chief Judge reassign the
captioned case to another District Judge within the Southern District of Ohio in
the Cincinnati or Columbus seat of court.3
3 On February 24, 2026, Kettering filed a Motion for Video Status Conference to address, among
other issues, "[t]he timing of this Court's reassignmentof this matter to another District Judge."
(Doc. #121, PAGEID2086). The undersigned concludes that the Motion is best addressed by the
successor judge.
13
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 13 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>

IT IS SO ORDERED
February 25, 2026
LJ" ^r i^ ^
WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
Case: 3:25-cv-00273-WHR-CHG Doc #: 122 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 14 of 14 PAGEID #: <pageID>