Reddy v. Nuance Communications, Inc. et al
Filing
217
ORDER STRIKING 185 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
KRISHNA REDDY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et.al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
Case No.: C 11-05632 PSG
ORDER RE NUANCE
COMMUNICATION, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2
(Re: Docket No. 185)
16
On January 7, 2013, Defendant Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) filed an
17
18
opposition to Plaintiff Krishna Reddy’s (“Reddy”) Motion in Limine No. 2 (“Opposition”). Upon
19
review of this document, the court notes there are several unredacted references to Reddy’s
20
personal information, including her social security number and date of birth.1 Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure 5.2 clearly states that this information must be redacted from any public filings with the
22
court. Accordingly,
23
The court hereby STRIKES Nuance’s Opposition. Any opposition to Reddy’s Motion in
24
25
Limine No. 2 shall be filed by midnight on January 11, 2013. If no opposition is filed, the court
26
will grant Reddy’s Motion in Limine No. 2.
27
28
1
See, e.g., Docket No. 185 at 70-74.
1
Case No.: 11-05632 PSG
ORDER
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
Dated: January 11, 2013
4
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-05632 PSG
ORDER
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?