Harnden v. St. Clair, County of et al
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's 19 MOTION Notice of Violation of Privacy filed by Pamela Suzanne Harnden [E-Filer].--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PAMELA SUZANNE HARNDEN,
Case No. 2:16-cv-13904
District Judge Mark. A. Goldsmith
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
SAINT CLAIR COUNTY SHERIFF
DONNELLON, et al.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION (DE 19)
On March 31, 2017, Defendants filed a witness list containing the
unredacted names of minor children KD and SH. (DE 16.) On April 12, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Notify Court of Violation of Rule
5.2(a)(3),” in which she pointed out the unredacted names of minor children. (DE
19.) She also asserted that the witness list did not reflect the current legal status of
witness number 4, who was identified as “Nicole Susan Harnden.” (Id.)
In the interest of removing the full names of minor witness from the public
docket, the Court granted the motion in part on April 13, 2017 and struck the initial
witness list. As to Plaintiff’s second argument, the Court noted that Defendants
were entitled to file a response in opposition in compliance with the Local Rules.
Instead, Defendants filed a revised witness list with the updated name of
witness number 4, Nicole Susan Collins. (DE 22 at ¶ 4.) As the discrepancy
identified by Plaintiff has been corrected, Plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED
IN PART as stated in the Court’s April 13, 2017 Order and DENIED IN PART
AS MOOT. (DE 19.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2017
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of this document was sent to parties of record on April
19, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?