Bratcher v. Waters et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 20 the defendants' motion under Rule 5.2(e)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale on 3/6/2025. (KG)

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Jacksonville Division
JOSEPH BRATCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

NO. 3:24-cv-1174-BJD-PDB

THOMAS K. WATERS ET AL.,
Defendants.

Order
The defendants request special handling of certain information:
Specifically, Defendants request that, pursuant to section 119.07(3),
Florida Statutes, the home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth,
and social security numbers of law enforcement officers and their
families will not be released in the record. If any such information is
necessary for proof of a claim or defense, it will be provided to counsel
only and shall be maintained as confidential, unless the parties agree to
its use in pleadings or at trial, or unless an order is obtained from the
Court to permit such use.

Doc. 20 at 6. The request is treated as a motion under Rule 5.2(e)(1), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 22. The plaintiff did not respond to the motion,
and the time to respond has passed. Under Local Rule 3.01(c), the Court
considers the motion unopposed.
Rule 5.2, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides privacy protection
for filings made with the Court:
(a) REDACTED FILINGS. 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 taxpayeridentification 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Rule 5.2 permits a court, for “good cause,” to require the
redaction of additional information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e)(1).
Good cause exists to extend privacy protections to home addresses and
phone numbers based on the general safety risks to law enforcement officers
and their immediate family members, reflected in the rationale behind Fla.
Stat. § 119.071(4)(d)2.a. The motion, Doc. 20, is granted to the extent that any
paper filed on the docket must comply with Rule 5.2 and, additionally, must
exclude by redaction any home address and phone number of any law
enforcement officer and the officer’s immediate family members.
Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on March 6, 2025.