Gallardo et al v. USA et al

Filing 107

ORDER. On or before Friday, 3/2/2012, D.R.G.'s guardian ad litem shall indicate whether he believes the protections of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) have been waived and, if not, whether D.R.G. requests that an order issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d). By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/21/12. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00868-PAB-CBS
MARIA GALLARDO and
D.R.G., a minor child by and through
her natural mother and next best friend, MARIA GALLARDO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on a review of the docket. Plaintiffs’ original
complaint in this action violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) by including the full name of a
minor. See Docket No. 1. Subsequently, the captions of additional filings by plaintiff,
see Docket Nos. 7, 89, as well as the Court and a now-terminated party also violated
Rule 5.2(a). See Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 27, 58, 62, 63, 71; see also
Docket No. 49 (Hrg. Tr.) at 18, l.6.1
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h), “[a] person waives the protection of Rule
5.2(a) as to the person’s own information by filing it without redaction and not under

1

Because a minor’s name was included in the original complaint, the full name
also appeared in the Electronic Case Filing Caption and text entry references to the filer
of various documents. See Docket Nos. 1, 3, 17, 22, 35, 44, 45, 46, 56, 60, 61, 64, 67,
68, 70, 79, 82, 85, 86.

seal.” Despite some authority to the contrary,2 the Court does not believe it is clear that
plaintiff Maria Gallardo has the authority to waive the protections of Rule 5.2(a) on
behalf of D.R.G. Moreover, the Court has since appointed a guardian ad litem to
“advocate for and represent the best interests of D.R.G. in this action.” Docket No. 73
at 2. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that, on or before Friday, March 2, 2012, D.R.G.’s guardian ad litem
shall indicate whether he believes the protections of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) have been
waived and, if not, whether D.R.G. requests that an order issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5.2(d).

DATED February 21, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

2

Orlandi ex rel. Colon v. Navistar Leasing Co., 2011 WL 3874870, at *1 n.1
(S.D.N.Y. Sep. 2, 2011) (“Although actions brought in the name of a minor should
identify the minor only by her initials, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a), this case was filed in
2009 with the infant Plaintiff's full name in the caption and throughout the Complaint.
There is little point, therefore, in the Court's referring to the infant Plaintiff merely by her
initials.”); Stein v. Sparks, 2009 WL 5066661, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 16, 2009)
(“Although [two of the plaintiffs] are minors, since Plaintiffs have failed to redact their
names and use initials, the privacy protections are waived pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
5.2(h).”).
2