Filed: Dec. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2015
Summary: REASONS FOR DECISION ELIZABETH W. MAGNER , Bankruptcy Judge . This matter came before the Court pursuant to a Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff, Mick Dorsey ("Dorsey") against Defendant, the Educational Credit Management Corporation ("ECMC"). 1 The basis of Dorsey's request for sanctions is the failure of ECMC to redact personal information from a court pleading in violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037. Dorsey further complains that ECMC has violated Federal Rule o
Summary: REASONS FOR DECISION ELIZABETH W. MAGNER , Bankruptcy Judge . This matter came before the Court pursuant to a Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff, Mick Dorsey ("Dorsey") against Defendant, the Educational Credit Management Corporation ("ECMC"). 1 The basis of Dorsey's request for sanctions is the failure of ECMC to redact personal information from a court pleading in violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037. Dorsey further complains that ECMC has violated Federal Rule of..
More
REASONS FOR DECISION
ELIZABETH W. MAGNER, Bankruptcy Judge.
This matter came before the Court pursuant to a Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff, Mick Dorsey ("Dorsey") against Defendant, the Educational Credit Management Corporation ("ECMC").1 The basis of Dorsey's request for sanctions is the failure of ECMC to redact personal information from a court pleading in violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037. Dorsey further complains that ECMC has violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(b)(1), asserting that ECMC has caused unnecessary delay and has increased the cost of litigation, causing him to feel prejudiced and harassed.
I. FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 9037
Rule 9037 provides:
(a) REDACTED FILINGS. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing made with the court that contains an individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual, other than the debtor, known to be and identified as a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty 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.
(d) PROTECTIVE ORDERS. For cause, the court may by order in a case under the Code: (1) require redaction of additional information; or
(2) limit or prohibit a nonparty's remote electronic access to a document filed with the court. . . .
Dorsey complains that ECMC violated Rule 9037 by virtue of its filing of pleading 214-2, "Loan Consolidation Application and Promissory Note." In this pleading, personal information, the month and date of Dorsey's birth and his financial account number, was not redacted.2 Thus, ECMC ran afoul of Rule 9037.
In In re Carter, 411 B.R. 730 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2009), the plaintiff sought sanctions against defendant due to defendant's failure to redact plaintiff's personal information in its proof of claim. The court rejected the notion of sanctions given that Rule 9037(d) provides the remedy available in connection with a violation of Rule 9037(a). The court reasoned:
Pursuant to subdivision (d), the relief provided in Rule 9037 is in the form of either redacting the debtor's personal information or limiting electronic access to the document at issue. See French v. American General Financial Services (In re French), 401 B.R. 295, 307-08 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2009) ("Rule 9037 offers a remedy in the form of requesting a court order requiring redaction of the offending information or limiting or prohibiting remote electronic access to documents by non-parties."). There is nothing contained in . . . the rule . . . that indicates an award of sanctions or damages would be an appropriate remedy. See Id. ("Rule 9037 does not, on the other hand, provide a private right of action for the relief sought by the Plaintiff to cancel the debt owed to the Defendant and/or assess sanctions against the Defendant for attaching documentation to the Proof of Claim containing the Plaintiff's full social security number and birth date.").
Carter, 411 B.R. at 737.
In the instant matter, ECMC has already provided a form of relief specified in Rule 9037(d), having filed a motion to redact3 which this Court promptly granted.4 Thus, any Rule 9037 violation that occurred in this case was remedied when ECMC accomplished the redaction of Dorsey's personal information. Further, Dorsey has provided no evidence that he has been prejudiced by the fact that the month and date of his birth and his student loan account number were briefly revealed.
II. FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 9011(b)(1)
Rule 9011(b)(1) provides:
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a petition, pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
A court is empowered, via the provisions of Rule 9011(c), to sanction a party found to be in violation of 9011(b). Rule 9011(c) provides:
(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may . . . impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.5
The burden of proof is on the moving party to prove that Bankruptcy Rule 9011 sanctions are appropriate.6 Dorsey has failed to satisfy his burden of proof, providing no evidence of a Rule 9011(b)(1) violation on the part of ECMC. Dorsey points to no pleading filed on behalf of ECMC which could be characterized as having been filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay or increase the cost of litigation. Quite the opposite is true. ECMC's pleadings, for the most part, have been filed in response to the numerous motions filed by Dorsey, in particular, Dorsey's motion for summary judgment and Dorsey's motions for default judgment. In fact, if any party can be found to have abused the process or caused unnecessary delay, it is Dorsey. Dorsey has filed a multitude of pleadings7 and has thwarted efforts to move this matter forward by failing to respond to discovery requests.
Based upon the above, the Court finds Dorsey's Request for Sanctions against ECMC to be without merit.
An Order in accord with these Reasons will be separately entered.
