Judge blasts Yasiel Puig's lawyer for AI faults but considers his argument

An attorney for former Dodger Yasiel Puig was blasted by a Los Angeles judge in court Thursday for AI-generated false citations. The judge said he would refer the attorney to the State Bar but then agreed to take under submission the attorney's argument opposing an anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation lawsuit against media companies.

Judge Peter A. Hernandez chastised Paul J. Denis of Denis & Rasi PC in Irvine for including the false citations in an opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, denying an ex parte motion by Denis to remove them from the record as well as a motion by the defense to strike the opposition entirely.

"It's a very important issue of public importance. The public needs to be aware of this rising tide of inappropriate AI use," Hernandez said. "It has wonderful uses, I'm sure, but it can be used in ways that can really damage the reputation of what all of us do here each and every day."

Still, Hernandez declined to adopt his tentative ruling to grant the anti-SLAPP motion against Puig after hearing argument from Denis. The judge said it was a "close call" as to whether the claims made in a documentary about gambling charges against the baseball player were protected by California's fair reporting privilege.

At the center of Puig's lawsuit is a May 2024 episode of the documentary series Rich & Shameless, which stated he was "awaiting trial for his gambling charges." Puig contends this claim is false, as he was never charged with gambling offenses. Puig v. All3Media America LLC et al., 25STCV15503 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed May 28, 2025).

Instead, his legal team argues he was only accused of making false statements and obstruction, and that media outlets, including TBS, TNT and Warner Bros. Discovery, knowingly broadcasted the misrepresentation despite receiving cease-and-desist letters. He alleges the reports caused significant reputational and emotional harm, given their wide reach on television and social media.

The dispute unfolded just as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a key ruling in May, holding that Puig was not bound by a withdrawn plea agreement in which he had once agreed to plead guilty to a false statements charge. The judges determined that evidence tied to the abandoned plea was inadmissible, sending the case back to trial court.

The defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion in September, asserting that the statement in the documentary was protected speech under California Civil Code § 47(d) protecting "fair and true" reporting, as well as the state and federal constitutions.

Puig's responding opposition argued that the statement clearly did not qualify as "fair and true."

"These words mean what they say," the opposition read. "'True' does not mean 'sort of true,' 'close enough,' or 'what we wish were true.' To wit: Mr. Puig was charged with obstruction and false statements. He was not charged with gambling. Calling those 'gambling charges' is like calling perjury a 'murder charge' because the lie concerned a homicide case."

In reply, the defense flagged two nonexistent cases cited in the opposition, as well as three others that cited fabricated language.

"At this juncture, defendants respectfully request that the court strike the opposition in its entirety and dismiss plaintiff's case on this basis alone," read the defense's reply. "Defendants reserve their right to seek sanctions or other remedies as appropriate."

In a subsequent declaration, Denis took sole responsibility for the errors, explaining that a recent death in his family, illness among his staff and time constraints converged, prompting him to use artificial intelligence in a deviation from his usual practice.

Denis owned up to the error further in Thursday's hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion, explaining that he filed his ex parte motion to correct the opposition in an effort to admit and rectify his mistake.

Rather than penalizing Denis himself, Hernandez said the matter would be best dealt with by the State Bar.

"I appreciate the fact that you identified it for the court, but it's for the State Bar, the agency that regulates attorneys, to get a handle on this issue and deal with it - and not wait years, as they usually do, to take action, but deal with it now," Hernandez said.

"I'm not casting aspersions in terms of what you do going forward," he told Denis. "It was a mistake, a mistake that is now being highlighted, and you need to deal with that, and I'm sure you will."

Turning to the merits of the defense motion, Hernandez noted that his tentative was to grant it before hearing argument from Denis, who called the statement in the documentary "categorically wrong."

In response, Jonathan L. Segal of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Los Angeles, appearing on behalf of the defendants, argued that the superseding indictment against Puig alleges predicate acts related to gambling, including placing over 900 bets with an illegal gambling ring, racking up "a couple hundred thousand dollars" in debt and paying another gambler to pay those debts off.

"The case against him is about his participation and covering up for the illegal gambling ring, so that can be fairly characterized holistically as illegal gambling charges," Segal argued.

Hernandez took the motion under submission, scheduling a case management conference for Dec. 19.