LLOYD v. PLUESE BECKER SALTZMAN LLC
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying without prejudice 25 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 11/14/2019. (rss,n.m. )
[Docket No. 25]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW
JERSEY
CAROL LLOYD,
HONORABLE RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 18-9420
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
PLUESE, BECKER & SALTZMAN,
LLC,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court upon [25] pro se
Plaintiff Carol Lloyd’s “Motion to Strike” from the Court’s
docket two exhibits attached to Defendants’ previous Motion to
Dismiss.
The exhibits are PACER reports showing the docket
activity in Plaintiff’s two previous Chapter 13 bankruptcy
cases.
Plaintiff asks this Court to “remove from the record”
these reports, asserting that they “are not pertinent to
anything in th[is] case,” which asserts violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act arising out of Defendant’s
litigation activities in connection with a state court action
to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home.
Plaintiff states that the
reports “appear[] to have been thrown in merely for affect
1
[sic].”
In response, Defendant “take[s] no position as to the
striking of the reports.”
However, Defendants observe that
the reports are public records.
The relief Plaintiff seeks is removal of the reports from
this Court’s docket, therefore the Court construes the motion
as a Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c).
Under that rule, a Motion to Seal must “describe with
particularity: (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings
at issue; (b) the legitimate private or public interest which
warrant the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and serious
injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted;
(d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is
not available; (e) any prior order sealing the same materials
in the pending action; and (f) the identity of any party or
nonparty known to be objecting to the sealing request.”
Plaintiff’s motion does not address all of the factors
enumerated in Rule 5.3(c).
Most notably, Plaintiff has not
identified with “particularity” a “clearly defined and serious
injury” that will result from allowing public access to
information that is already publicly available from other
sources; and Plaintiff has not addressed whether a less
restrictive alternative to wholesale sealing of the reports-for example, redaction of certain information contained in the
2
reports-- would alleviate Plaintiff’s concerns.
Accordingly,
IT IS this 14th day of November, 2019 hereby:
ORDERED that [25] Motion to Strike is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
s/ Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
3
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?