Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. T. Disney Trucking and Grading, Inc. et al
Filing
153
ORDER striking Exhibit A to the 151 Evanston Response; directing the Clerk of Court to remove [151-1] Exhibit A from the docket; directing counsel to file a notice of certification. Redacted exhibit and certification due 5/25/2023. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 5/15/2023. (MHM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:21-cv-1097-MMH-JBT
T. DISNEY TRUCKING AND
GRADING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Upon review of Evanston
Insurance Company’s Response in Opposition to T. Disney Trucking and
Grading, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 151; Response), the Court
finds that Evanston has failed to properly redact Exhibit A as required by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)) and the Administrative Procedures
for Electronic Filing in this Court (CM/ECF Admin. P.). Pursuant to Rule 5.2,
Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing
with the court that contains an individual’s social-security
number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name
of an individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account
number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only:
(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and
taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual's birth;
(3) the minor's initials; and
(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.
See Rule 5.2(a); see also CM/ECF Admin. P., Part I. Here, Exhibit A includes
the full birth dates of three individuals in direct violation of this Rule. See
Exhibit A at 2-3.
Significantly, this Court’s Administrative Procedures make clear that the
obligation to properly redact personal identifiers falls entirely on the filing
party. See CM/ECF Admin. P., Part I, ¶ 1 (“It is the responsibility of every
lawyer and pro se litigant to redact personal identifiers before filing any
documents with the court.”). Indeed, the Court’s Administrative Procedures
impose on the filing party the responsibility to verify “that appropriate and
effective methods of redaction have been used.” Id. Consequently, the Court
will strike Exhibit A and direct Evanston to file a properly redacted version of
this exhibit. The Court will also direct Evanston’s counsel to review Rule 5.2
and Part I of the Court’s Administrative Procedures and file a notice on the
Court docket certifying that:
1) Counsel has read the relevant rules; and
2) Counsel has ensured that “appropriate and effective methods of
redaction” will be used for all future filings.
While the Court recognizes that redaction errors are generally
inadvertent, these errors are not without harm and greater care must be taken
-2-
to protect personal identifying information before it is filed on the docket.
Indeed, in the Court’s experience, once a document is filed on the public docket
it is almost immediately picked up by legal research services where it may
remain available to the public indefinitely. As such, counsel is cautioned that
failure to comply with the redaction rules going forward may warrant sanctions.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Exhibit A (Doc. 151-1) is STRICKEN, and the Clerk of the Court is
directed to remove this document from the Court docket.
2. Evanston shall have up to and including May 25, 2023, to file a
properly redacted copy of this exhibit.
3. On or before May 25, 2023, Evanston’s counsel shall file a notice on
the Court docket certifying that: 1) counsel has read Rule 5.2 and Part
I of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, and 2) counsel has
ensured that “appropriate and effective methods of redaction” will be
used before all future filings.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 15, 2023.
-3-
lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties
-4-
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?