If you have a few minutes to kill, go to your AI chatbot of choice and ask it to draw you a picture. Whatever you want. A raccoon perhaps.
Then slowly have it change that picture, and see how long it takes it to simply refuse. "Take away its fur," you'll say. "Make it slightly longer." "Give it 9 fingers on the front claws and 3 on the back." "Now he's wearing a tracksuit." "Now he's embarrassed about his baldness, give him hair plugs."
One of the stumbling blocks I have noticed is asking for a lawyer without glasses. No matter how clear you are, they always seem to sneak back in.
I can relate. I remember the first time I went to the DMV in Delaware. The guy behind the counter was, maaaaayyyybe 25. I had so far managed to avoid the corrective lenses note on my license and was eager to maintain this sign of my vigorous youth (I think I was 31).
I put my face in the little goggle machine. First row - easy. Second row - not so much. Row 3 - pretty bad. The guy at the counter kept saying "really? Try again." This went on for like 10 minutes. I know that reading it now, it sounds like he was trying to cut me a break. But if you were there, looking into his stupid perfect eyes, you would know that he was just genuinely baffled that I could not read that line. I think it shook him.
This is all a long-winded introduction to Judge Andrews' opinion in New Directions Tech. Consulting, LLC v. Abbott Labs. Inc., C.A. No. 25-506-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2026). The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Tennyson to resolve an early 101 motion. Judge Tennyson denied the motion in a manner reminiscent of Judge Noreika's practice, finding that—with 160 claims asserted—the parties had not given sufficient attention to the representative claim analysis to resolve the entire case, and that it was not an efficient use of the Court's time to resolve just the few claims actually discussed.
The defendant filed objections to the R&R which Judge Andrews denied, based in large part on several briefing irregularities:
The Magistrate Judge points out that Defendants supplemented their brief with a seven-page chart. The Magistrate Judge states, correctly, that Defendants "circumvent[]" the briefing page limits of the Local Rules. More significantly, the Magistrate Judge describes the briefing as "conclusory and largely unhelpful." I agree. It is Defendants' burden to show representativeness. Defendants failed
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Indeed, the Court seems to have been especially bothered bu the fact that this chart was in 8-point font, which it described as a violation of the local rules:
There are also Local Rules about font size. D.Del. LR 5.1. l(a) (12 point font for "[a]ll printed matter"). I do not think the exception for "[ e]xhibits submitted for filing," D.Del. LR 5.1.1.(b)(l), which appears to deal with pre-existing evidence, applies. Were the Magistrate Judge trying to load up on Defendants, she might have mentioned that the text of the seven additional pages is in what appears to be 8 point font.
Judge Andrews drove the point home by adding in a bit of 8-pt font for flare:
Let this serve as a reminder that, unless that danged kid at the DMV is your judge, please observe the font requirements.
