Oppenheim v. Lampert

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendant's Motion to Redact (Filing No. 10 ) is granted. The clerk of the court is directed to seal the Complaint (Filing No. 1 ) and plaintiff's Affidavit and Proof of Service (Filing Nos. 6 and 6 - (1)). A ll further pleadings, including the amended complaint discussed herein, shall be served upon defendant's counsel and shall not include defendant's personal identifying information. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Filing No. 13 ) and defendant's Stipulation (Filing No. 14 ) are granted. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in accordance with this Memorandum and Order on or before January 30, 2012. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ALEXANDER W. OPPENHEIM, et
al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KEITH M. LAMPERT,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV437

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Motion
to Redact (Filing No. 10).

Also pending is plaintiff’s Motion to

Amend (Filing No. 13) and defendant’s Stipulation regarding
plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Filing No. 14).
On January 12, 2012, defendant filed a Motion to Redact
(Filing No. 10).

In his motion, defendant asks the Court to

redact his alleged residential address and age from the Complaint
and plaintiff’s Proof of Service.

(Id.)

Defendant asserts that,

due to his duties as a police officer, his personal identifying
information could be used to harm himself or his family.

(Id.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and NECivR
5.0.3(b), and for good cause shown, the Court will grant
defendant’s Motion to Redact.

The clerk of the court shall seal

the Complaint (Filing No. 1) and plaintiff’s Affidavit and Proof
of Service (Filing Nos. 6 and 6-1).

All further pleadings shall

be served upon defendant’s counsel and shall not include
defendant’s personal identifying information.

On January 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend
his Complaint (Filing No. 13).

That same day, defendant filed a

Stipulation regarding plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Filing No.
14).

In his Stipulation, defendant “consents to and does not

oppose . . . Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.”

(Id.)

However, defendant specifically

requests that in any amended complaint, plaintiff name the City
of Omaha as a defendant rather than the Omaha Police Department.
(Id.)

The Court agrees that claims against the Omaha Police

Department are, in all practical affect, claims against the City
of Omaha.

See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 14-101, 14-213.

Accordingly,

plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and defendant’s Stipulation will be
granted.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in accordance

with this Memorandum and Order on or before January 30, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
granted.

Defendant’s Motion to Redact (Filing No. 10) is

The clerk of the court is directed to seal the

Complaint (Filing No. 1) and plaintiff’s Affidavit and Proof of
Service (Filing Nos. 6 and 6-1).

All further pleadings,

including the amended complaint discussed herein, shall be served
upon defendant’s counsel and shall not include defendant’s
personal identifying information.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Filing No. 13) and

defendant’s Stipulation (Filing No. 14) are granted.

-2-

Plaintiff

shall file an amended complaint in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order on or before January 30, 2012.
DATED this 24th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no
responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion
of the Court.
-3-