Williams v. Twin Rivers Unified School District, 2:17-cv-2364 JAM DB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190306c24
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . On February 14, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 24.) In support of the motion to compel, plaintiff filed a declaration. (ECF No. 24-2.) On February 15, 2019, plaintiff field a motion seeking "[a]n Order removing the incorrectly filed declaration" because an attachment to the declaration "failed to redact" a person's date of birth. (ECF No.
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . On February 14, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 24.) In support of the motion to compel, plaintiff filed a declaration. (ECF No. 24-2.) On February 15, 2019, plaintiff field a motion seeking "[a]n Order removing the incorrectly filed declaration" because an attachment to the declaration "failed to redact" a person's date of birth. (ECF No. 2..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
On February 14, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 24.) In support of the motion to compel, plaintiff filed a declaration. (ECF No. 24-2.) On February 15, 2019, plaintiff field a motion seeking "[a]n Order removing the incorrectly filed declaration" because an attachment to the declaration "failed to redact" a person's date of birth. (ECF No. 26.)
However, once filed, the court does not remove filed documents from the docket. Instead, parties may seek to remedy such errors through redaction or sealing. Here, on February 19, 2019, the assigned District Judge granted plaintiff's motion to seal the document at issue. (ECF No. 28.) And plaintiff has filed a properly redacted version of the document. (ECF No. 25.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's February 15, 2019 motion to remove a declaration (ECF No. 26) is denied as having been rendered moot.
Source: Leagle
