Solano v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 14

ORDER. the Court hereby INSTRUCTS the Clerk's Office to change the docket in this case to remove the full names of the minors represented by Plaintiff as guardian ad litem and to replace those names with initials. The Court further STRIKES and SEALS Docket Nos. 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 and 12 . The properly redacted documents shall be filed no later than November 25, 2015. The Court further ORDERS the parties to familiarize themselves with Rule 5.2 and Special Order No. 108, and to fully comply with them in the future. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/20/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

ALEJANDRA SOLANO, et al.,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01690-JCM-NJK
ORDER

16

It has come to the Court’s attention that numerous documents (including the case-initiating

17

documents) have been filed in this case with the full names of the minor children that Plaintiff is

18

representing as guardian ad litem. In doing so, counsel have violated, inter alia, Rule 5.2(a) of the

19

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Special Order No. 108, which require that only a minor’s initials

20

be provided. Accordingly, the Court hereby INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to change the docket in

21

this case to remove the full names of the minors represented by Plaintiff as guardian ad litem and to

22

replace those names with initials.

23

The Court further STRIKES and SEALS Docket Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. For

24

each document that they filed, counsel are ORDERED to file a properly redacted version that otherwise

25

makes no changes to the document. The properly redacted documents shall be filed no later than

26

November 25, 2015. Other than the pending motion to dismiss and stipulation for extension (Docket

27
28

1

Nos. 8, 12), those documents may be filed as attachments to a notice of compliance. The pending

2

motion to dismiss and stipulation must be re-filed as standalone docket entries.1

3

The Court further ORDERS the parties to familiarize themselves with Rule 5.2 and Special

4

Order No. 108, and to fully comply with them in the future. The Court expects strict compliance with

5

the orders and rules of the Court, and the parties and counsel should be aware that the failure to comply

6

may result in sanctions. See, e.g., Davis v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 128937, *5

7

n.3 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2013) (sanctioning counsel for repeated failure to comply with Court orders,

8

including order to use only minor’s initials in filings).2

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: November 20, 2015

11

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Nothing herein shall be construed as altering the briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss. In
particular, in the event that the refiling of that motion triggers the issuance of an automatic notice of a
response deadline through CM/ECF, counsel is instructed that the automatically noticed deadline is not
controlling. Cf. Carrillo v. B&J Andrews Enters., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22010, *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 19,
2013).
2

The Court has previously cautioned one of the attorneys improperly filing documents in this case
on the very same issue. See J.D.H. v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2:13-cv-1300-APG-NJK, Docket No.
51 (August 14, 2014) (“Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hanseen are further CAUTIONED that they should expect
future non-compliance with the Court’s redaction requirements to result in monetary sanctions.”).
2