From today's decision in Gittemeier v. Liberty Mutual Pers. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mo.):
Gittemeier posits that Liberty Mutual again miscited cases in its filing and referenced at least one non-existent citation, despite the Court's warning in the previous order to verify its sources before submitting future filings. Gittemeier points out that the Goodman case was again miscited in Liberty Mutual's filing after it had been miscited in the initial summary judgment memorandum. Moreover, Gittemeier asserts that the quoted section from 30 Mo. Prac., Insurance Law & Practice is not found in the cited section or in the nearby sections….
Liberty Mutual's erroneous citations constitute a serious oversight warranting consideration of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. After Liberty Mutual cited two nonexistent cases in its initial motion for summary judgment, the Court urged "Liberty Mutual to verify its sources before submitting future filings with the Court" and indicated that this warning would be provided only once. Yet somehow, in its memorandum in support of its second motion for summary judgment, Liberty Mutual not only cited two nonexistent cases again (Goodman was miscited previously as well), but also misquoted or mischaracterized multiple cases, including Dhyne, Goodman, and Chaudri. {Liberty Mutual cited Goodman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 WL 4534416, at *6-7 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 28, 2022) and Chaudhri v State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 4596697 (E.D. Mo. Sept 30, 2022). These cases do not exist.} Furthermore, Liberty Mutual falsely suggested that 30 Mo. Prac., Insurance Law & Practice §§ 4:2, 4:8, and 4:9 contains comments regarding cooperation clauses and EUO [examination under oath] requirements.
