Howard v. Second Chance Jai Alai LLC et al

Filing 68

ORDER. Defendant's motions to redact (Doc. 61 & 62) are GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE and REMOVE from the docket Docs. 52-60, including any exhibits and attachments. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 4/21/2016. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER HOWARD and
JEFFREY GREENSTONE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly
situated
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-200-Oc-PRL

SECOND CHANCE JAI ALAI LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER
This consent case is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Second Chance JaiAlai, LLC’s Motions to Redact (Docs. 61 & 62). Both motions pertain to exhibits filed by
Defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 51). Defendant recites that it
filed documents containing personal identifying information into the record in error and requests
that the Court enter an order directing the Clerk of Court to substitute the proposed redacted
exhibits for the ones currently in the record. Indeed, Defendant has provided proposed redacted
exhibits marking out identifying information such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth.
(Docs. 61 & 62).
Counsel for Defendant is cautioned that it is the responsibility of every attorney and pro se
litigant to redact personal identifiers before filing pleadings, motions, memoranda, exhibits, and
other documents with the Court. The attorney or pro se litigant is responsible for verifying that
appropriate and effective methods of redaction have been used. Attorneys and pro se litigants

must review the Judicial Conference Privacy Policy and applicable Court rules at
http://www.privacy.uscourts.gov/.
Upon consideration, and although Defendant has failed to provide the required certification
regarding Plaintiff’s position as to the motions pursuant to Local Rule 3.10(g), it is apparent that
Defendant’s exhibits containing the personal identifying information should be removed from the
record. Defendant, however, has not identified which specific exhibits should be substituted for
the proposed redacted exhibits, but merely requests that the Court direct the Clerk to perform the
substitution. This task, however, would be both time-consuming and onerous for the Clerk, if not
impossible. Defendant has filed Docs. 52-60, all of which appear to contain exhibits offered in
support of its motion for summary judgment. Complicating matters, Defendant has docketed
certain documents in error. For example, Doc. 59 is docketed as a deposition but is clearly an
exhibit.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, Defendant’s motions to redact (Doc. 61 & 62) are
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE and REMOVE from the docket Docs. 52-60,
including any exhibits and attachments.

Thereafter, Defendant shall REFILE a properly

redacted complete set of exhibits, and should take care to ensure compliance with the Judicial
Conference Privacy Policy cited above. Further, to the extent that the striking and refiling of the
exhibits hinders Plaintiff’s ability to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment,
Plaintiff may request an extension of time to respond.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on April 21, 2016.

-2-

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-