MURPHY v. MABUS
Filing
101
ORDER ON SEALING AND REDACTION By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (sfw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MICHAEL S. MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES N. MATTIS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:14-cv-00400-JAW
ORDER ON SEALING AND REDACTION
On October 10, 2014, Michael Murphy filed a complaint alleging, among other
things, age and disability discrimination in connection with his employment at the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. Compl. and Demand for Trial by Jury
(ECF No. 1); Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 56). On May 6, 2016, the Secretary of
Defense filed a notice of intent to move for partial summary judgment. Notice of
Intent to Move for Summ. J. (ECF No. 46). The parties subsequently agreed to eight
stipulated facts. Stipulation and J.R. Solely for Purposes of Summ. J. (ECF No. 60).
On August 10, 2016, the Secretary filed a motion for partial summary judgment and
a statement of undisputed material facts. Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No.
61); Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ.
J. (ECF No. 62). On October 5, 2016, Mr. Murphy filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to Mr. Murphy’s motion, a responsive statement of material facts, and an
additional set of material facts. Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF
No. 73); Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Pl.’s
Statement of Additional Material Facts at 1–12 (ECF No. 74); Id. at 12–42. On
October 26, 2016, the Secretary filed a reply memorandum and a reply statement of
facts. Def.’s Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 96); Reply
Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56(D) and 56(E) Responses (ECF
No. 97).
Appendix IV of the Local Rules of the District of Maine sets forth the
administrative procedures governing electronic filing:
(i) Privacy
In compliance with the policy of the Judicial Conference of the
United States and in order to address the privacy concerns
created by Internet access to Court documents, parties shall
refrain from including, or shall partially redact where inclusion
is necessary, the following personal data identifiers from all
documents filed with the Court, including exhibits thereto,
whether filed electronically or in paper, unless otherwise ordered
by the Court:
(3) Dates of birth: Use of the year of birth only[.]
D. Me. Loc. R., app. 4(i).
Notwithstanding the local procedures, the parties in this case repeatedly
included Mr. Murphy’s birth month and day in their electronic filings. In order to
protect Mr. Murphy’s personal information, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to
seal the following documents from public view:
Second Am. Compl., Attach. 1, Decl. Under Penalty of Perjury (ECF No. 56-1)
Stipulation and J.R. Solely for Purposes of Summ. J. (ECF No. 60)
Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 61)
2
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Partial
Summ. J. (ECF No. 62)
Decl. of A.U.S.A. Andrew K. Lizotte, Attach. 1, Dep. of Michael S. Murphy at
(ECF No. 63-1)
Decl. of A.U.S.A. Andrew K. Lizotte (ECF No. 98)
Decl. of A.U.S.A. Andrew K. Lizotte, Attach. 5, Feb. 21, 2014 Letter (ECF No.
98-5)
Decl. of A.U.S.A. Andrew K. Lizotte, Attach. 7, Mar. 14, 2014 Letter (ECF No.
98-7)
Decl. of A.U.S.A. Andrew K. Lizotte, Attach. 8, March 19, 2014 Letter (ECF No.
98-8)
Decl. of A.U.S.A. Andrew K. Lizotte, Attach. 9, Report of Investigation (ECF No.
98-9)
Redacted Document, Attach. 1, Tr. of Dep. of William W. Fales, Jr. (ECF No.
91-1)
Redacted Document, Attach. 2, Decl. Under Penalty of Perjury (ECF No. 91-2)
Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to immediately comply with the Local
Rules and to file redacted versions of these documents as well all other documents
redacting Mr. Murphy’s personal identifying information no later than Friday, March
24, 2017.
3
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 21st day of March, 2017
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?