Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. Clark County Detention Center, 2:15-cv-01670-APG-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180508c50 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 07, 2018
Latest Update: May 07, 2018
Summary: Order [Docket No. 150] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Naphcare's response to Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Docket No. 150. In violation of Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule IC 6-1, Naphcare's counsel filed on the public docket Plaintiff's medical records containing personal identifiers that were not redacted. Docket Nos. 150-1, 150-2, 150-3, 150-4, 150-5, 150-6, 150-7, 150-8, 150-9, 150-11. Because counsel v
More

Order

[Docket No. 150]

Pending before the Court is Defendant Naphcare's response to Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Docket No. 150. In violation of Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule IC 6-1, Naphcare's counsel filed on the public docket Plaintiff's medical records containing personal identifiers that were not redacted. Docket Nos. 150-1, 150-2, 150-3, 150-4, 150-5, 150-6, 150-7, 150-8, 150-9, 150-11. Because counsel violated those rules, the filing at Docket No. 150 and all exhibits thereto are hereby STRICKEN and the Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk's Office to maintain those filings under seal. An amended response that complies with all applicable rules shall be filed by May 11, 2018,1 and the deadline for any reply is hereby extended to May 18, 2018.

The Court CAUTIONS Naphcare and its counsel that they must comply with all applicable rules moving forward.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court CAUTIONS Napheare and its counsel that they must comply with all applicable rules moving forward.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. It appears the hundreds of pages of medical records were filed in support of the "background" information outlining Naphcare's version of facts regarding the merits of the case. See, e.g., Docket No. 150 at 6. It is not clear that filing medical records is necessary to address the standards pertinent to the pending motion. Moreover, to the extent the documents have been designated as confidential by Plaintiff, the Court reminds Naphcare and its counsel of their meet-and-confer obligations and of the Court's sealing requirements. See Docket No. 110.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer