Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Pedri v. Centeno
October 29, 2007
DR. JOSEPH F. PEDRI ON BEHALF OF JP, A MINOR, AND MP, A MINOR, PLAINTIFF,
PATROL OFFICER JAMES CENTENO, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn D. GO United States Magistrate Judge
By order dated October 26, 2007, this Court directed the parties to file submissions regarding the standing of plaintiff Joseph Pedri to bring this action and to make certain decisions regarding his ex-wife, Jeanne M. Cardieri. See ct. doc. 27. Since plaintiff has filed his response earlier than the November 2, 2007 deadline originally set, see ct. doc. 28, this Court is modifying the prior schedule as follows: defendant's response must be filed by November 5, 2007 and the time and date of the hearing is changed to November 9, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.
In his submission, plaintiff did not observe my prior order directing the parties to comply with the privacy requirements set forth in the Court's Administrative Order 2004-09, a copy of which is attached. Plaintiff argues that "[n]othing herein is confidential within the meaning of" that administrative order and that the documents attached "arose under public courtroom proceedings involving routine issues of domestic relations law..." Ct. doc. 28 at 2. However, the requirements of the administrative order are not dependent on whether a document is "confidential." Rather, the order clearly requires that initials of minors be used instead of their full names and that personal identifying information be redacted in part and states that "compliance will be mandatory by any party wishing to file a document containing the personal data identifiers listed in the attachment; and that compliance will be strictly enforced, unless otherwise specifically ordered to the contrary by the Court in an individual civil or criminal action." Administrative Order 2004-09.
Moreover, irrespective of whether prior state court proceedings are public, the filing of documents electronically raises serious privacy concerns. Any personal information not otherwise protected will be made available over the Internet via WebPACER. In his most recent submission, plaintiff not only includes the names of his minor children, but attaches state court documents that disclose their Social Security numbers and birth dates, as well as the Social Security numbers of plaintiff and his ex-wife. Accordingly, this Court directs the Clerk of the Court to seal plaintiff's recent response (ct. doc. 28), as well as his affidavit in opposition to the defendant's motion for sanctions (ct. doc. 21), which also contain the minor children's Social Security numbers and dates of birth, and his reply (ct. doc. 23), which contains a letter from one of the psychological treatment providers.
The parties are warned that if they fail to comply with the administrative order, "[t]he Court may strike an unredacted document from the record, or deny the relief sought." See Administrative Order 2004-09.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For