Rainbolt v. Veneman et al
ORDER granting 2 Motion to Seal . Signed by Judge Jimm Larry Hendren on February 21, 2006. (tg)
Rainbolt v. Veneman et al
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION JANET S. RAINBOLT V. VENEMAN, et al. ORDER Now on this 21st day of February, 2006, comes on to be considered plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 2). The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and Civil No. 06-3008 DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
orders as follows with respect thereto: 1. The plaintiff initiated this action pro se by the Plaintiff's
filing of her complaint on February 14, 2006.
complaint includes four (4) exhibits which plaintiff identifies as Exhibits AA, BB, CC and DD. 2. On February 14, 2006, the plaintiff also filed her In the motion,
Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 2).
the plaintiff seeks the Court's permission to include only a redacted version of Exhibit AA to the Complaint on this Court's internet filing system, while filing an unredacted copy of the document under seal with the Court Clerk. In support of her
motion, the plaintiff cites the E-Government Act of 2002. 3. The Court finds that the plaintiff's motion should be, Although the Court finds that much in Exhibit AA was redacted
and it hereby is, granted. of the information
unnecessarily (such as the 23 redacted pages of plaintiff's
Page 2 of 2
employment application and work history), the redacted Exhibit AA currently filed on this Court's internet filing system is acceptable in this instance. 4. In light of the foregoing, the Court directs that, in
future filings in this case, plaintiff may only redact the following information: * * * * * social security numbers to the last four digits; names of minor children to the initials; dates of birth to the year; financial account numbers to the last four digits; and home addresses to the city and state.
If plaintiff believes that additional redactions should be permitted, she may file a motion with the Court requesting leave to make additional redactions. 5. The Court notes in passing that plaintiff is obliged
to serve the opposing parties with an unredacted copy of Exhibit AA, and also with copies of all future redacted documents. Nevertheless, to save time and to promote efficiency, the Court authorizes the Court Clerk to provide the opposing parties with an unredacted copy of Exhibit AA, as well as unredacted copies of all documents filed in the future, if requested. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?