Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Liberty Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Eric L. Myers, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 10-2024-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Defendant Eric L. Myers’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 228), Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts in 

Support of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 229), and all of the extensions 

to Doc. 229. (Doc. 245). Plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. 246) and Defendant has 

filed a Reply (Doc. 247). 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 

228) and the accompanying statement of facts and exhibits to that motion (Doc. 229; Doc. 

229-1; Doc. 229-2; Doc. 229-3; Doc. 229-4; Doc. 229-5). Defendant has pointed out that 

these documents contain instances of Defendant’s unredacted social security number and 

birth date. (See Doc. 229-3 at 5, 29, 37, 43). 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 276 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 -

II. DISCUSSION 

 As an initial matter, Defendant has not shown why Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 228) should be struck from the record. Defendant has not 

proven that Doc. 228 contains any information subject to the redaction requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s request 

to strike Doc. 228. 

 Redaction requirements for filings are governed by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 5.2. Under Rule 5.2(a), filings may only include the year of an individual’s 

birth and the last four digits of the social-security number. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 5.2(a)(1)-(2). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(b), however, the redaction requirement does 

not apply to the official record of a state-court proceeding and the record of a court or 

tribunal, if that record was not subject to the redaction requirement when originally filed. 

Id. at 5.2(b)(3)-(4). Further, Rule 5.2(h) states “[a] person waives the protection of Rule 

5.2(a) as to the person’s own information by filing it without redaction and not under 

seal.” 

 Defendant has filed numerous documents with the Court that includes his birth 

date. (See Doc. 169-1; Doc. 176 at 10-11). Under Rule 5.2(h) this waives any privacy 

Defendant had in that information. 

 The instances where Defendant’s social security number was not redacted in 

Plaintiff’s filings, which Defendant points to as grounds to strike Doc. 229-1, were all part 

of the official record in Maricopa County Superior Court. The exhibits challenged by 

Defendant were all documents originally attached as exhibits to Defendant Donald Myers’ 

(“Donald”) petition for a death certificate for Defendant that Donald filed in 1997. (See

Doc. 229-1 at 2-45). In addition, Defendant has also filed documents containing his social 

security number in his probate action in state court. (Doc. 246 at 6). 

 In Richards v. Great Western Ins. Co., No. 11-CV-965, 2012 WL 695991, at *12 

(D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2012), the district court found that when a party filed information 

subject to redaction in an attachment to a pleading the party filed in state court, that the 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 276 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 3 -

party had waived any privacy in that information. The district court cited Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 5.2(b)(3)-(4) and Rule 5.2(h). Id. The Court agrees with the district 

court’s reasoning and conclusion in Richards. Regardless of whether Defendant was 

required to or not, Defendant used his unredacted social security number in a pleading in 

state court and that pleading is part of the record in this case. Further, Donald’s petition 

for a death certificate that contains Defendant’s unredacted social security number is part 

of the official record of a state court proceeding. Under Rule 5.2(b)(3) the redaction 

requirement does not apply to the documents Plaintiff filed as an attachment to its 

Statement of Facts. (Doc. 229-1 at 2-45). 

V. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Eric L. Myer’s Motion to Strike. (Doc. 

245). 

 Dated this 11th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 276 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 3