ORDER RE DOCUMENTS SEALED SUA SPONTE BY THE COURT, UNSEALING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO RESUBMIT REDACTED VERSIONS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

(ECF Nos. 113, 124)

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

On August 3, 2018, District Judge Dale A. Drozd issued a minute order sealing all filings submitted by Plaintiff, Madhu Sameer, and revoking Plaintiff's permission to file documents electronically (ECF No. 113).

As Judge Drozd explained in an order issued on August 17, 2018 (ECF No. 124), the minute order was not intended to be permanent or punitive, but was issued sua sponte after it was discovered that Plaintiff included private information in some of the documents she had filed, such as complete home addresses of some of the defendants. Although home addresses do not fall within the categories of information that must be omitted or redacted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 140, the information raises significant privacy and security concerns, given the identity of some of the defendants.

Further, some of Plaintiff's filings include information that is explicitly required to be omitted or redacted under Rule 5.2(a) and/or Local Rule 140, such as dates of birth.

Judge Drozd referred the case to the undersigned for review of Plaintiff's previously filed documents and determination of which of Plaintiff's documents may be unsealed and which documents must be resubmitted by Plaintiff in redacted form. (ECF No. 124.)

DISCUSSION

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), unless otherwise ordered by the court, a party is not to file a document containing "an individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account number." The party making the filing may include only "(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number; (2) the year of the individual's birth; (3) the minor's initials; and (4) the last four digits of the financial-account number." Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a); see Local Rule 140. Some of the documents filed by Plaintiff include the dates of birth for various individuals, and potentially other information that violates Rule 5.2(a) and Local Rule 140. Documents containing such information will remain under seal and Plaintiff will be required to resubmit redacted versions of these documents.

Plaintiff also filed documents that include the home addresses of law enforcement or judicial defendants. As Judge Drozd found (ECF No. 124 at 1-2), there is a compelling security reason for denying public access to this information. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1184 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming magistrate judge's decision to seal home addresses and social security numbers of law enforcement officers to avoid "expos[ing] the officers and their families to harm or identity theft"). Documents containing such information will remain under seal and Plaintiff will be required to resubmit redacted versions of these documents.

After reviewing the documents filed by Plaintiff, the Court has determined that the following documents may be unsealed as they do not appear to contain information required to be excluded or redacted under Rule 5.2(a), Local Rule 140, or Judge Drozd's order: ECF Nos. 11, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 39, 42, 43, 51, 53, 54, 57, 61, 65, 68, 73, 78, 86, 95, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, and 111.

The Court has determined that the following documents contain information required to be omitted or redacted under Rule 5.2(a), Local Rule 140, and/or Judge Drozd's order, and these documents will accordingly remain under seal: ECF Nos. 1, 26, 36, 41, 44, 59, 72, 107, and 108. Plaintiff will be required to resubmit redacted versions of these documents in which the following information has been redacted: home addresses of law enforcement and judicial defendants, the dates of birth of any individual, and any other information required to be redacted or omitted under Rule 5.2(a), Local Rule 140, or Judge Drozd's order (ECF No. 124).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

IT IS SO ORDERED.