ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST

(Doc. 51)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED VERSION OF EXHIBIT

(Doc. 50-2 at 15; Doc. 51 at 4.)

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Malcolm Yisrael Wright ("Plaintiff") is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

On June 10, 2014, defendants Gonzales, Miller, and Smith ("Defendants") filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, pursuant to Rule 56. (Doc. 50.) Later on the same date, Defendants filed a request to substitute one of their exhibits to the motion for summary judgment with a redacted version of the same exhibit. (Doc. 51.)

II. DEFENDANTS' REQUEST

Defendants have notified the court that "Defendants ..., in an attachment to a declaration filed this morning, as Docket No. 50-2 did not redact the date of birth and social security number references." (Request at 1.) Defendants request the court to substitute a redacted version of the attachment, which they have provided to the court. Defendants request substitution of "the attached redacted attachment four (4) to the Declaration of Shelly Shandor to correct this inadvertent oversight." (Id.)

III. DISCUSSION

Ordinarily, the Clerk of Court may not alter documents once they have been filed with the court, and an amended pleading must be retyped and filed by the party as a new document, complete in itself, superceding the prior pleading. The Clerk of Court has custody of all electronic and paper files and records of the court, and the Local Rules prohibit the taking of any file, record, paper, or item belonging to the files of the court from the custody of the Clerk without a special order of the court. Local Rule 138(a)(2). Local Rule 220 provides that "[u]nless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself . . . [and a]ll changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading." L.R. 220.

Here, Defendants seek to replace a one-page exhibit with a redacted version of the same one-page exhibit, to redact inadvertent references to an individual's date of birth and social security number. Local Rule 140 requires "counsel and the Court [to] omit . . . or redact [certain] personal data identifiers from all pleadings, documents, and exhibits, whether filed electronically or on paper, unless the Court orders otherwise," including "Social Security numbers" and "Dates of birth." Local Rule 140(a)(iii),(iv).

In such an instance, privacy concerns are best served by removing or sealing information on the record that violates privacy laws as soon as possible. Therefore, in this exceptional circumstance, the court finds good cause to authorize the Clerk of Court to immediately remove Defendants' one-page exhibit from the record and replace it with a redacted version of the same one-page exhibit.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.