LAUER v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPT., 2:15-cv-00326-LDG-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150226b37
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . On February 24, 2015, Defendant filed a petition for removal with this Court that included Plaintiff's personal identifiers, including his date of birth, social security number, and what appears to be his personal address. Docket No. 1. As such, the documents were sealed by the Clerk's Office. Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002 and this Court's rules, it is the duty of counsel to ensure that private information (such as home address, social se
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . On February 24, 2015, Defendant filed a petition for removal with this Court that included Plaintiff's personal identifiers, including his date of birth, social security number, and what appears to be his personal address. Docket No. 1. As such, the documents were sealed by the Clerk's Office. Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002 and this Court's rules, it is the duty of counsel to ensure that private information (such as home address, social sec..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
On February 24, 2015, Defendant filed a petition for removal with this Court that included Plaintiff's personal identifiers, including his date of birth, social security number, and what appears to be his personal address. Docket No. 1. As such, the documents were sealed by the Clerk's Office. Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002 and this Court's rules, it is the duty of counsel to ensure that private information (such as home address, social security number, and dates of birth) is not filed on the public record. See Special Order No. 108; see also Special Order No. 109 at III.H (requiring electronically filed documents to comply with Special Order No. 108).
No later than March 4, 2015, Defendant shall file either (1) a publicly-available redacted version of its petition for removal that complies with the above rules, or (2) a statement explaining why it believes redaction is not required in this case such that it would be proper to unseal its petition for removal as currently filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
