Order NOTICE OF MOTIONS RULINGS (Complainant`s October 14, 2026, Two Emergency Motions and One Motion for Leave) — 2022SOX00009

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
COVINGTON, LA DISTRICT OFFICE
__________________________________
Issue Date: 15 October 2026
In the Matter of:
TAMIKA MILLER,
Complainant,
v.
CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
Respondent.
CASE NO.: 2022-SOX-00009
OSHA NO: 6-3280-20-102
JOHN M. HERKE
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE OF MOTIONS RULINGS
(Complainant’s October 14, 2026, Two Emergency Motions and One Motion for Leave)
1. Basis of Ruling. On August 15, 2026, Complainant filed a 70-page “emergency” motion
seeking multiple forms of relief. Review of that motion did not reveal any “emergency;”
nonetheless, after a failed attempt to schedule a conference with all concerned parties, I issued a
ruling on Complainant’s motion on September 11, 2026. In that ruling, I noted particularly that the
motion appeared to have been generated almost entirely through the use of Artificial Intelligence
(AI), because large sections of the motion had no bearing on the substantive aspects of
Complainant’s case.
Complainant has now filed another 70-page “emergency” motion as to which there does not
appear to be any real emergency,1 a 14-page “emergency” motion with no demonstrated
emergency,2 and a 24-page motion (with 71 pages of exhibits) seeking the seemingly simple relief
of being allowed to amend her complaint.
The first motion is entitled “EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, TO
QUASH OR LIMIT DEPOSITION, TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE
DISCOVERY INDEX AND ALL PRIOR DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND RESPONSES, TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ALL PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED DISCOVERY
REGARDLESS OF BOILERPLATE OBJECTIONS, TO LIMIT ALL DISCOVERY GOING
FORWARD TO SEVEN DAYS, AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING.”
The second motion is entitled “EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
CONSIDERATION OF HER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
1 The “emergency” in this motion appears to be that Complainant was served with a deposition notice on August 26,
2026, and she then waited approximately six weeks before objecting to the scheduled deposition—which is still five
weeks away on November 20, 2026.
2 The “emergency” nature of a motion for leave to amend a complaint is entirely unclear.

- 2 -
COMPLAINT, FOR IMMEDIATE PRESERVATION ORDER, TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND FOR SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE, AND FOR STATUS CONFERENCE.”
The third motion is entitled simply “COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT.”3
2. Analysis.
Each of the three motions at issue appears to have been AI-generated. For example, each
motion includes an admonitory “notice” to me and to Respondent’s counsel that it “is filed by a
pro se litigant. Pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the pleadings of pro se
litigants are held to ‘less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”
Additionally, one of the motions discusses at length alleged “spoliation of evidence” that is neither
mentioned in the motion title nor included in the “Relief Requested.” And, notably, the “relief
requested” numbers 39 requested orders, findings, and rulings—not including subparts. Moreover,
the “relief requested” includes not only duplicative items, but also items that almost certainly
cannot be accomplished within the timeframes stated, such as asking me to “Order Respondent,
within 7 calendar days, to produce a complete Discovery Index and copies of all discovery
requests, responses, and objections served in this case since 2022.”4
AI has come a long way in a short time. But it is neither a substitute for experienced lawyers
nor an acceptable crutch for self-represented litigants (not yet, at least). As such, I decline to
continue expending scarce human resources to decipher the case-specific relevance of machine-
generated pleadings. This is particularly true of motions (such as these) that have no clear input
from the offeror, especially when those pleadings are so heavily filled with side issues that have
no clear bearing on the issues presented in the title of the motion.
Complainant’s two “emergency” motions will be denied—but solely on the basis that they
clearly appear to be AI-generated and they have not established a true “emergency.”
Complainant’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint will also be denied—but solely
because it, too, clearly appears to be AI-generated and it contains large amounts of material that is
unnecessary to the relief requested.
Complainant may re-file her motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, but before
doing so, Complainant should delete as unnecessary
i. the “introduction,”
ii. the “procedural history,”
3 One wonders why it would take 24 single-spaced pages and 71 pages of exhibits to seek permission to amend a
complaint to add new allegations. To actually amend the complaint might, perhaps, require such complexity, but
simply to seek leave to do so should and must be a much shorter exercise. The inordinately lengthy natures of the
submissions pointed out herein are simply further evidence of machine-generated pleadings.
4 See Complainant’s “Emergency Motion for Protective Order and other relief,” at p. 18. The syntax of the sentence
also causes the requested relief to be unclear: Does Complainant want me to issue the order within 7 calendar days,
or does Complainant want me to order Respondent to comply with the order within 7 calendar days of its issuance?
I also note—again—that Complainant’s motions lack any page numbers, thus requiring me to laboriously
count through the pages to ensure accurate citations to the record. Leaving pages unnumbered in pleadings
reflects neither best practices nor an eye toward efficiency for all concerned.

- 3 -
iii. all references to previous settlement talks and proffers of “conditions precedent” to
settlement,
iv. arguments not bearing on the proposed “new allegations to be added” – such as items
19(a) through (o) and items 20(a) through (f) that are attempts to pre-argue the case;
v. references to discovery requests (item 20(g); “Background Evidence” (all of subsection
B beginning on page 12); and
vi. the “request to extend discovery” (all of item VI beginning on page 21).
Simply put, going forward the parties may file whatever pleadings they deem appropriate as
long as those pleadings are thought out by the party or a human representative, written by the party
or a human representative, and limited to the relief requested (in other words, not including
multiple sections having perhaps something to do with the eventual hearing, but nothing to do with
the subject of the pleading itself).
As to the remaining relief requested in Complainant’s motions, I will conduct a conference
with the parties to put this case back on track toward an efficient and effective resolution. Toward
that end, the parties SHALL confer with each other by telephone, MS Teams, or Zoom (NOT by
email alone), and shall agree on at least two mutually available dates and times on which to conduct
a conference with me. Counsel for Respondent shall then communicate the two mutually available
dates and times to my paralegal, Kasey Courtney, by email at Courtney.Kasey.A@dol.gov (with
a copy to Complainant). I will select one of the available dates and issue a conference order. In the
meantime, the scheduled November 20, 2026, deposition remains scheduled; it is not canceled, but
I expect the parties to agree on mutually available conference dates that allow plenty of time to
determine whether that scheduled deposition will go forward.
3. Rulings.
a. Complainant’s EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, TO QUASH OR
LIMIT DEPOSITION, TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF A COMPLETE DISCOVERY
INDEX AND ALL PRIOR DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND RESPONSES, TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF ALL PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED DISCOVERY REGARDLESS
OF BOILERPLATE OBJECTIONS, TO LIMIT ALL DISCOVERY GOING FORWARD
TO SEVEN DAYS, AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING is denied without
prejudice to refiling, if necessary, after the next scheduled conference as discussed above.
b. Complainant’s EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF
HER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR
IMMEDIATE PRESERVATION ORDER, TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR
SANCTIONS FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE, AND FOR STATUS CONFERENCE is
denied without prejudice to refiling, if necessary, after the next scheduled conference as
discussed above.
c. COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT is denied without prejudice to re-filing at Complainant’s convenience, but
subject to the restrictions set forth above in section 2 of this motions ruling.

- 4 -
d. The parties SHALL confer with each other by telephone, MS Teams, or Zoom (NOT by
email alone), and shall agree on at least two mutually available dates and times on which
to conduct a conference with me. Counsel for Respondent shall then communicate the two
mutually available dates and times to my paralegal, Kasey Courtney, by email at
Courtney.Kasey.A@dol.gov (with a copy to Complainant).
e. I will select one of the available dates provided and issue a conference order.
f. The November 20, 2026, scheduled deposition remains scheduled; it is not canceled at this
time, but I expect the parties to agree on mutually available conference dates that allow
plenty of time to determine whether that scheduled deposition will go forward.
SO ORDERED this day at Covington, Louisiana.
JOHN M. HERKE
Administrative Law Judge