Rubin v. United States Life Insurance Company in The City of New York, The

Filing 80

ORDER. ORDERED that defendant United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York's Unopposed Motion to Substitute Amended Pleading and Exhibits in Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 68 is GRANTED in part as reflected in this orde r. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall place the documents filed as Docket Nos. 43-1, 55, 55-3, 55-8, 55-9, and 63-1 under Level 1 restriction. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter the exhibits to defendant's motion as redac ted versions of the restricted filings as follows: Docket Nos. 68-1 and 68-2 shall be entered as redacted versions of Docket No. 43-1; Docket No. 68-3 shall be entered as the redacted version of Docket No. 55; Docket No. 68-4 shall be entered as th e redacted version of Docket No. 55-3; Docket No. 68-5 shall be entered as the redacted version of Docket No. 55-8; Docket No. 68-6 shall be entered as the redacted version of Docket No. 55-9, and Docket No. 68-7 shall be entered as the redacted 7version of Docket No. 63-1. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 04/12/16.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00384-PAB-NYW
ALEXANDER JAY RUBIN, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Substitute
Amended Pleading and Exhibits in Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 [Docket No. 68].
Defendant states that, on January 7, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel informed defendant’s
counsel that certain documents filed in this case were not in compliance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5.2. Docket No. 68 at 1, ¶ 1. Defendant’s counsel agrees that the documents
are not in compliance with Rule 5.2 – specifically, that the documents at issue
improperly disclose plaintiff’s date of birth – and defendant wishes to substitute
amended documents, which redact plaintiff’s date of birth, for the non-compliant filings.1
The Court cannot simply substitute defendant’s amended filings for the originals.
Rule 5.2 does, however, authorize the Court to issue an order “limit[ing] or prohibit[ing]
a nonparty’s remote electronic access to a document filed with the court.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5.2(e)(2). Mindful of the need to protect plaintiff’s private information, the Court
1

The filings at issue are Docket Nos. 43-1, 55, 55-3, 55-8, 55-9, and 63-1. See
Docket No. 68 at 2, ¶ 4.

construes defendant’s motion as a motion to place the non-compliant filings under
restriction and to file redacted copies publicly. The Court will grant such relief.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendant United States Life Insurance Company in the City of
New York’s Unopposed Motion to Substitute Amended Pleading and Exhibits in
Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 [Docket No. 68] is GRANTED in part as reflected in
this order. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall place the documents filed as Docket
Nos. 43-1, 55, 55-3, 55-8, 55-9, and 63-1 under Lev el 1 restriction. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter the exhibits to defendant’s
motion as redacted versions of the restricted filings as follows: Docket Nos. 68-1 and
68-2 shall be entered as redacted versions of Docket No. 43-1; Docket No. 68-3 shall
be entered as the redacted version of Docket No. 55; Docket No. 68-4 shall be entered
as the redacted version of Docket No. 55-3; Docket No. 68-5 shall be entered as the
redacted version of Docket No. 55-8; Docket No. 68-6 shall be entered as the redacted
version of Docket No. 55-9, and Docket No. 68-7 shall be entered as the redacted
version of Docket No. 63-1.

DATED April 12, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

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

2