“This conduct is intolerable to any court….”

In an earlier blog, I wrote that an example of an ineffective use of artificial intelligence was provided in Camarillo Hospitality LLC v. G6 Hospitality LLC, 2026 WL 1113871 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026)(“Camarillo I”). See Otter.ai “Transcript” Was Excluded From Consideration (Apr. 25, 2026). The court refused to consider a transcript prepared using Otter.ai because there had been no effort to demonstrate its accuracy or trustworthiness.  Considering the merits, the court wrote:

The Court has spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to sort through this extremely messy record. The Court has not turned over every stone or read between every line and very well may have misunderstood certain facts or arguments. The parties have only themselves to blame for this.”

Id. at n. 1.

The Hon. Andrew J. Peck (ret.) jokingly refers to Rule 1.1, which is “don’t piss off the judge.”  The recent decision in Camarillo Hospitality LLC v. G6 Hospitality LLC, 2026 WL 1396637, at n. 4 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2026)(“Camarillo II”)(Thurston, J.), states:

[A]ny true disputes were buried under multiple peripheral issues and inadmissible evidence. The Court spent far more time untangling the presentations than the parties possibly could have spent briefing the one topic on which the [Order to Show Cause] issued.

The court added:

This conduct is intolerable to any court but especially to this one, whose extremely limited judicial resources are stretched over enormous caseloads. It will no longer squander those limited resources on those who do not value them. Thus, any further filings SHALL be supported by concise briefs, which rely on admissible evidence. Failure to comply will result in the Court exercising its inherent authority to control its proceedings to strike offending briefs and imposing sanctions.

The Camarillo II decision discharged an order to show cause (“OSC”).  “The Court emphasizes here that both sides have unnecessarily multiplied these proceedings by submitting confusing and incomplete filings….” [emphasis in original].  The court pointed to the Otter.ai transcript, and the parties “continuing to press issues that have been resolved for all material purposes….”

The defendant had been ordered to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to release $406,958 in “reservation proceeds” to plaintiff.

Crucially, the Court offered Defendant the opportunity to purge any contempt by paying the $406,958 within 48 hours….  Given that the OSC issued at 11:45 a.m. on Friday, April 24, 2026, the deadline technically expired at that time on Sunday, April 26, and thus would “run until the same time” on Monday, April 27. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2).

However, the court continued: “Instead of sending the funds on that day, Defendant appears to have initiated a wire transfer at some point on Tuesday, April 28, with funds arriving on Wednesday, April 29….”

But: “Though Defendant once again failed to comply with a Court-imposed deadline and offers only the weakest of excuses for the tardiness…, Plaintiffs again fail to explain how such a de minimis delay caused them any harm.”

Plaintiffs explained that it was not the one-day delay, but a lengthier refusal that justified their request for additional compensation.  However, the court wrote: “Among other things, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how any delays have harmed them,” because “generic assertions of a cash flow crisis do not demonstrate compensable harm.”

It has been said that “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.” (Mar. 31, 2025).  Under the “party presentation principle,” “Courts are essentially passive instruments of government” that “wait for cases to come to them” and “rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision.”  Whiting v. City of Athens, 170 F.4^th 455, 460 (6^th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026)(citation and quotation omitted).