Filed: Feb. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on a review of the docket. Plaintiffs' original complaint in this action violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) by including the full name of a minor. See Docket No. 1. Subsequently, the captions of additional filings by plaintiff, see Docket Nos. 7, 89, as well as the Court and a now-terminated party also violated Rule 5.2(a). See Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 27, 58, 62, 63, 71; see also Docket No. 49 (Hrg. Tr
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on a review of the docket. Plaintiffs' original complaint in this action violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) by including the full name of a minor. See Docket No. 1. Subsequently, the captions of additional filings by plaintiff, see Docket Nos. 7, 89, as well as the Court and a now-terminated party also violated Rule 5.2(a). See Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 27, 58, 62, 63, 71; see also Docket No. 49 (Hrg. Tr...
More
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a review of the docket. Plaintiffs' original complaint in this action violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) by including the full name of a minor. See Docket No. 1. Subsequently, the captions of additional filings by plaintiff, see Docket Nos. 7, 89, as well as the Court and a now-terminated party also violated Rule 5.2(a). See Docket Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 27, 58, 62, 63, 71; see also Docket No. 49 (Hrg. Tr.) at 18, l.6.1
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h), "[a] person waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) as to the person's own information by filing it without redaction and not under seal." Despite some authority to the contrary,2 the Court does not believe it is clear that plaintiff Maria Gallardo has the authority to waive the protections of Rule 5.2(a) on behalf of D.R.G. Moreover, the Court has since appointed a guardian ad litem to "advocate for and represent the best interests of D.R.G. in this action." Docket No. 73 at 2. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that, on or before Friday, March 2, 2012, D.R.G.'s guardian ad litem shall indicate whether he believes the protections of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) have been waived and, if not, whether D.R.G. requests that an order issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d).
FootNotes
1. Because a minor's name was included in the original complaint, the full name also appeared in the Electronic Case Filing Caption and text entry references to the filer of various documents. See Docket Nos. 1, 3, 17, 22, 35, 44, 45, 46, 56, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68, 70, 79, 82, 85, 86.
2. Orlandi ex rel. Colon v. Navistar Leasing Co., 2011 WL 3874870, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 2, 2011) ("Although actions brought in the name of a minor should identify the minor only by her initials, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a), this case was filed in 2009 with the infant Plaintiff's full name in the caption and throughout the Complaint. There is little point, therefore, in the Court's referring to the infant Plaintiff merely by her initials."); Stein v. Sparks, 2009 WL 5066661, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 16, 2009) ("Although [two of the plaintiffs] are minors, since Plaintiffs have failed to redact their names and use initials, the privacy protections are waived pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(h).").
