Stone v. Louisiana Department of Revenue

Filing 9

ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/23/2014. (lag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOANNE STONE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-2182

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
ORDER AND REASONS

SECTION I

Before the Court is an amended motion1 filed by plaintiff, Joanne Stone, to seal all or part
of the record in this case. Plaintiff believes that the record of this lawsuit “is preventing [her] from
employment, getting jobs and working.”2 The Court previously denied a similar motion filed by
plaintiff to seal the entire record in this case, noting in particular that plaintiff had not “satisfied
Local Rule 5.6 by articulating what specific confidential information should be sealed, or why
sealing is necessary or authorized by governing case law.”3
In her amended motion to seal, plaintiff specifies that the attachments to her complaint
should be sealed because they “include[] specific confidential information of medical, personal,
personnel, and governmental tax information, and governmental work.”4 The Court has reviewed
the materials specified by plaintiff and agrees that they include personal identifying information.
Pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff should have redacted that
information, filed it under seal originally, or refrained from filing it at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2
(establishing procedures to limit disclosure of “an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-

1

R. Doc. No. 8.
R. Doc. No. 8, at 1.
3
R. Doc. No. 7, at 2.
4
R. Doc. No. 8, at 1-2.
2

1

identification number, or birth date”). Although plaintiff waived the protections of Rule 5.2 by
filing those materials into the record herself, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h), considering her pro se status,
the Court finds it appropriate to seal the attachments to the complaint to limit further dissemination
of that personal identifying information. To the extent that plaintiff again urges the Court to seal
any other portion of the record, the motion is denied for the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior
order and reasons. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and that the attachments
to plaintiff’s complaint5 are hereby SEALED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in all other respects.
New Orleans, Louisiana, October 23, 2014.
________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

R. Doc. No. 1-1, at 9-128.
2