Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00270/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00270-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Byron Chapman
Plaintiff
City of Lincoln
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF LINCOLN,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-00270-GEB-EFB

ORDER

On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request “to 

redact plaintiff’s personal/sensitive information (i.e., social 

security number, birth date, driver’s licenses, and telephone 

number) in [E]xhibit A [to] the Complaint that was filed on 

January 30, 2015, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and L.R. 140.” 

(Pl.’s Req., ECF No. 5.) A proposed redacted copy of Exhibit A to 

the Complaint is attached to Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 5-1.)

Plaintiff failed to redact the referenced information 

as prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and Local 

Rule 140. These rules require the redaction of certain “personal 

data identifiers from all pleadings,” including social security 

numbers and dates of birth. E.D. Cal. R. 140(a). Therefore, what 

Plaintiff requests, in effect, is that the court “substitute[] 

[Plaintiff’s proposed] redacted Exhibit A [in place of the 

original, unredacted] Exhibit A filed with the . . . Complaint.” 

(Pl.’s Proposed Order, ECF No. 6.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MCE-EFB Document 8 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

This request is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall 

delete the present Exhibit A to the Complaint, (ECF No. 2-1), and 

shall attach in its place Plaintiff’s proposed, redacted Exhibit 

A, which is currently docketed as ECF No. 7. See CBS, Inc. v. 

U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 765 F.2d 823, 825-

26 (9th Cir. 1985) (ordering “improvidently filed” document 

removed from the record); see also Fine v. Cambridge Int’l Sys., 

Inc., No. 12cv165 WQH (BGS), 2012 WL 2871656, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

July 11, 2012) (referencing that motion containing information in 

violation of Rule 5.2 had been “removed from the docket”). 

Dated: February 20, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00270-MCE-EFB Document 8 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2