Douglas v. Sacramento County et al

Filing 34

AMENDED 33 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/08/10 ORDERING that, pursuant to FRCP and Local Rules, discovery documents # 28 , # 31 , # 32 are STRICKEN. Clerk shall REDACT plf's DOB and include only the year on document s: Dckt. No. 28 at 5, Dckt. No. 31 at 2:24, Dckt. No. 31 at 7, Dckt. No. 31 at 8, and Dckt. No. 32 at 15. Clerk shall REDACT plf's SSN and include only the four numbers on documents: Dckt. No. 31 at 2:19, Dckt. No. 31at 7, and Dckt. No. 31 at 8. Additionally, on 03/15/10, dfts filed their 29 expert disclosure in accordance with the 11/10/09 status (pretrial scheduling) order and the 01/22/10 amendment thereto. On 03/30/10, plf filed objections to dfts' expert designation, challenging the expert's qualifications and the substance of his testimony. Because those objections are premature, they will be DISREGARDED at this time. (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IRWIN DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, vs. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________/ AMENDED ORDER1 No. CIV 09-1038 FCD EFB PS

This action is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 28, plaintiff filed his initial disclosures in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), Dckt. No. 28; on April 5, 2010, plaintiff filed his response to a request for admissions from plaintiff, Dckt. No. 31; and on April 5, 2010, plaintiff filed supplemental disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), Dckt. No. 32. Initial disclosures and discovery requests and responses "shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the [discovery] or proof of service is at issue. When required in a proceeding, only that part of the [discovery request and response] that is in issue shall be filed." E.D. Cal. L.R. 250.2-250.4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Accordingly, docket numbers 28, This order amends and supersedes the earlier order filed on April 8, 2010. Dckt. No.
1

26

33.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

31, and 32 are stricken and the Clerk of the Court shall make a notation on the docket to that effect. Further, upon review of plaintiff's filings, it appears that some of the documents contain private information that should be redacted. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 140(a) ("[P]ursuant to the Judicial Conference Policy on Privacy and Electronic Access to Case Files, and the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, effective April 16, 2003, when filing documents, counsel and the Court shall omit or, where reference is necessary, partially redact the following personal data identifiers from all pleadings, documents, and exhibits, whether filed electronically or on paper, unless the Court orders otherwise: . . . Social Security numbers: Use only the last four numbers; [and] Dates of birth: Use only the year . . . ."). Therefore, the Clerk's Office shall redact plaintiff's date of birth from the following documents and include only the year: Dckt. No. 28 at 5, Dckt. No. 31 at 2:24, Dckt. No. 31 at 7, Dckt. No. 31 at 8, and Dckt. No. 32 at 15. The Clerk's Office shall also redact plaintiff's social security number from the following documents and include only the last four numbers: Dckt. No. 31 at 2:19, Dckt. No. 31 at 7, and Dckt. No. 31 at 8. Additionally, on March 15, 2010, defendants filed their expert disclosure in accordance with the November 10, 2009 status (pretrial scheduling) order and the January 22, 2010 amendment thereto. Dckt. No. 29. On March 30, 2010, plaintiff filed objections to defendants' expert designation, challenging the expert's qualifications and the substance of his testimony. Because those objections are premature, they will be disregarded at this time. SO ORDERED. DATED: April 8, 2010.

2