COLEMAN v. STARBUCKS, 6:14-cv-527-Orl-22TBS. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160310963
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . On November 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and Their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports Then They Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct" (Doc. 70). Plaintiff ordered a copy of the hearing transcript (Doc. 102). On February 29, 2016, the court reporter docketed the following notice: NOTICE to counsel of fili
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . On November 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and Their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports Then They Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct" (Doc. 70). Plaintiff ordered a copy of the hearing transcript (Doc. 102). On February 29, 2016, the court reporter docketed the following notice: NOTICE to counsel of filin..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
On November 9, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and Their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports Then They Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct" (Doc. 70). Plaintiff ordered a copy of the hearing transcript (Doc. 102). On February 29, 2016, the court reporter docketed the following notice:
NOTICE to counsel of filing of OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (Doc. No. 104). The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.
(Doc. 105).
On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Motion Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of Transcript Dated 2-29-2016." (Doc. 108). Plaintiff requests "that the Transcript from the hearing on 11/9/2015 be redacted because it has inaccuracies that need to be corrected." Plaintiff's filing appears to be a response to the court reporter's February 29, 2016 notice, but the filing does not comply with the notice. The purpose of the court reporter's notice is to give the parties an opportunity to review the hearing transcript for private, confidential information that may need to be redacted (removed from the public record). The court reporter's notice is not intended to give the parties an opportunity to change the public record based upon perceived inaccuracies.
To the extent that Plaintiff's filing is intended to be a motion, she has not complied with Local Rule 3.01(g), identified any portion of the November 9, 2015 hearing transcript that needs to be redacted, or provided a legitimate privacy interest that would justify the redaction. For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 108) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
