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)

Download PDF
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?