Unredacted Social Security Numbers in 

Federal Court PACER Documents

Joe S. Cecil, George Cort, Ashley Springer, 

and Vashty Gobinpersad 

Federal Judicial Center

October 25, 2015

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s statutory mission to 

conduct and stimulate research and development for the improvement of judicial administration. While the Center 

regards the content as responsible and valuable, the report does not reflect policy or recommendations of the Board 

of the Federal Judicial Center.

January 7-8 2016 Page 51 of 706
2 

Summary

This study found 16,811 instances of unredacted Social Security numbers of 5,031 individuals 

appearing in 5,437 documents filed in federal district and bankruptcy courts in November 2013 

and available through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. The 

presence of Social Security numbers for approximately 75% (4,021) of these individuals appears 

to violate rules adopted by the Judicial Conference. Moreover, 314 of the unredacted Social 

Security numbers included one or more failed attempts at redaction in which the Social Security 

number appeared on the document to be obscured but the Social Security number itself 

remained accessible in the metadata of the document. Another 123 unredacted Social Security 

numbers appeared in Bankruptcy Form 21, which should not be filed with the court record. 

This replication of a preliminary study in 2010 used more powerful search tools to examine 

the text of almost 4 million PACER documents filed in federal district and bankruptcy courts 

and found more instances of unredacted Social Security numbers than found in the previous 

study. These more powerful search techniques account for the apparent increase in incidence of 

unredacted Social Security numbers. In fact, after taking into account differences in the search 

techniques, it appears that the incidence of unredacted Social Security numbers in documents 

filed in bankruptcy courts has decreased by almost half since 2009. 

January 7-8 2016 Page 52 of 706
3 

Background

In response to The E-Government Act of 2002,1 the Judicial Conference of the United States 

adopted rules effective on December 1, 2007, intended to protect private individual information 

in publically accessible electronic federal court records.2 These rules require that certain personal 

information that fails to meet specific exemptions be redacted from documents filed with the 

federal courts. Such information includes Social Security and taxpayer identification numbers, 

names of minor children, financial account numbers, dates of birth, and, in criminal cases, home 

addresses.3

 The rules make clear that the responsibility for redaction of personal information 

rests with those who file documents with the courts and not the court clerks who accept the 

filings. The federal court electronic document filing system also was modified to display an 

enhanced message at login to remind attorneys of their obligation to redact private information 

from the documents that they file and to require attorneys to acknowledge this responsibility.4 

In 2009, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference directed the Committee on 

Rules of Practice and Procedure to report on the operation of the privacy rules. The 

Committee’s Privacy Subcommittee considered the findings of a preliminary 2010 empirical 

study by the Federal Judicial Center, conducted a miniconference at the Fordham School of Law, 

and reviewed surveys of judges, clerks of court, and assistant U.S. attorneys regarding their 

experiences with the operation of the privacy rules. While the Privacy Subcommittee found no 

general problems in the operation of the privacy rules, it recommended that “[t]o ensure 

 

1 Pub. L. 107-347, § 205(c) (3) (requiring the federal judiciary to formulate rules “to protect the privacy and security 

concerns relating to electronic filing of documents”). 2 More specifically, the Judicial Conference adopted amendments to Appellate Rule 25 and adopted new Bankruptcy 

Rule 9037, Civil Rule 5.2, and Criminal Rule 49.1, each setting forth the requirements that those filing records with 

the federal court redact private information unless that information is exempt under the rules. 3 This study and the preliminary 2010 study focused only on the presence of unredacted Social Security numbers in 

federal court records. In the course of this study we also found, but did not record, instances of other protected 

information that remained unredacted. 4 The initial notice on electronic case filing reminding attorneys of their responsibility to redact personal 

information was developed in response to a recommendation of the Administrative Office Privacy Task Force in 

April 2009. The Judicial Conference, through its Privacy Subcommittee of the Rules Committee, further modified 

the message to provide links to the Federal Rules and to require the filing attorney to acknowledge this 

responsibility. Memorandum from Noel J. Augustyn, Assistant Director, Office of Court Administration, 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, to Clerks of the United States Courts, Re: Enhanced Notice of 

Attorney Redaction Responsibility, July 23, 2009.

January 7-8 2016 Page 53 of 706
4 

continued effective implementation, every other year the FJC should undertake a random review 

of court filings for unredacted personal identifier information.” This report offers an overdue 

reassessment of implementation of those privacy protections. 

The initial 2010 empirical study5 found 2,899 federal court PACER documents with one or 

more unredacted Social Security numbers among the almost 10 million PACER documents filed 

in federal district and bankruptcy courts in a two-month period during 2009. Seventeen percent 

(491) of those documents appeared to qualify for an exemption from the redaction requirement 

under the relevant privacy rules, leaving 2,408 documents containing one or more unredacted 

Social Security numbers with no apparent basis for exemption under the rules. That initial 

report also noted that the search methodology employed was unable to detect Social Security 

numbers that might reside within nontext documents such as PDF documents stored as static 

images, and that the results likely underestimated the extent to which Social Security numbers 

and other private information appear in federal court documents. 

This replication study differs from the initial 2010 study in three important ways. First, this 

study examined documents6

 filed in a one-month (November 2013) rather than two-month 

(November and December 2009) period. We believe that the filing practices were similar for 

those two months and do not attribute any differences in the findings of the two studies to 

reliance in this study on filings in a single month. 

Second, this replication study identifies both the number of individuals whose unredacted 

Social Security numbers appeared, as well as the number of court documents containing such 

numbers. The 2010 study identified only the number of documents that included one or more 

unredacted Social Security numbers. 

 

5 Memorandum from George Cort and Joe Cecil, Research Division, Federal Judicial Center, to the Privacy 

Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Social Security Numbers 

in Federal Court Documents (April 5, 2010). 6 We	use	the	term	“document”	to	refer	to	a	single	electronic	document	as	identified	in	the	federal	courts’	PACER	

system. Such	a	document	is	often	composed of	several	individual submissions	to	the court,	such	as	a	motion	and	

attached	exhibits. Especially	large	filings	may	be	broken	into	two	or	more	PACER	documents	for	easier	access.

This	is	especially	common in	bankruptcy	filings.

January 7-8 2016 Page 54 of 706
5 

Third, and most importantly, this study also identified unredacted Social Security numbers 

appearing in documents initially filed as scanned images. Such documents were reprocessed by 

an optical character reader to transform the scanned images into searchable texts. The initial 

2010 study identified only Social Security numbers in PACER documents that were originally 

filed in a text-searchable Social Security number format (i.e., 123-45-6789) without such 

reprocessing, thereby failing to detect Social Security numbers in documents that were filed 

as scanned images.7

 The specific research methods relied on in this study are set forth in 

Appendix A. 

Although the Judicial Conference rules seek to protect a wide range of personal 

information in court records, we examined only the occurrence of unredacted Social Security 

numbers, as well as those financial account numbers that follow a Social Security number 

format. We did not attempt to identify the occurrence of unredacted names of minor children, 

financial account numbers in other formats, dates of birth, and home addresses in criminal 

cases, all of which are protected under the rules. However, we did notice instances of each of 

these types of unredacted protected information during our review of the documents. 

 

7 As noted in the original study, “The PERL program was unable to convert certain types of non-text documents, 

such as PDF documents stored as static images, and we were unable to detect Social Security numbers that might 

reside within such documents.” (Page 2).

January 7-8 2016 Page 55 of 706
6 

Findings

Tables 1 and 2 below present the findings of our effort to identify unredacted Social Security 

numbers in PACER documents filed in federal district and bankruptcy courts. As indicated in 

Table 1, we found 16,811 separate instances of unredacted Social Security numbers among the 

3,900,841 PACER documents filed in November 2013. Closer examination revealed that these 

instances involved Social Security numbers for just over 5,000 different individuals, with some 

individual Social Security numbers appearing multiple times in one or more court documents. 

Individual Social Security numbers appear in district court documents (including both civil and 

criminal case documents) and in bankruptcy court documents in approximately equal numbers, 

2,498 and 2,533, respectively. However, far more documents are filed in bankruptcy courts.8

When we examined the first occurrence of an unredacted Social Security number in those 

documents where they were found, approximately 20 percent overall appeared to qualify for an 

exemption from the redaction requirement, with a somewhat higher rate of exemptions in 

documents filed in district courts. 

Table	1: Unredacted Social	Security	Numbers (SSNs) in	PACER	Documents

 

8 We began our task by conducting electronic searches of all 2,725,788 bankruptcy court and 1,175,053 district court 

PACER documents filed in November 2013. 

Total District	Courts

Bankruptcy

Courts

Instances of	SSNs 16,811 7,093 9,718

Unique	Unredacted SSNs 5,031 2,498 2,533

		•	First	Occurrence

Exempt	from	Redaction	 1,010 602 408

		•	First	Occurrence

Not Exempt		from	Redaction

4,021 1,896 2,125

January 7-8 2016 Page 56 of 706
7 

As indicated in Table 2, these 16,811 instances are scattered across 5,437 PACER documents. Some of these documents contained numerous instances of unredacted Social Security 

numbers. Such instances were more common in bankruptcy court documents, which differ from 

district court documents in that the forms, exhibits, and attachments often include financial 

account numbers and other personal information for the bankruptcy filers, and occasionally for 

the creditors as well. A particular problem arises when the bankruptcy involves failure of a 

business enterprise and former employees are listed as individual creditors, sometimes with 

individual Social Security numbers appended along with other payroll information. In one such 

case we found over 2,000 instances of unredacted Social Security numbers of former employees 

(with some numbers appearing repeatedly) in a single bankruptcy court document. In another 

case hundreds of unredacted Social Security numbers appeared in a single document, 

comprising almost all of the unredacted Social Security numbers found in that bankruptcy 

court. 

Table	2: PACER Documents	Containing	One	or	More	Unredacted	Social	Security	Numbers*	

Total

District

Courts

Bankruptcy

Courts

Including	One	or	More	

Unredacted	SSN(s)		 5,437 2,345 3,092

Including One	or	More Likely	

Nonexempt	Unredacted	

SSN(s)	

2,974 1,634 1,340

*	This	measure	counts	individual	PACER	documents,	which	may	comprise	parts	of	a

			single	large	filing	that	is	divided	into	several	PACER	documents	to	ease	user	access.

Unredacted Social Security numbers in district court civil and criminal documents tend to 

show up in exhibits, depositions, and interrogatories. In criminal cases, Social Security numbers 

often appear in judgment and sentencing orders. Social Security numbers in district court 

documents appear somewhat more likely to qualify for an exemption from the redaction 

requirement under the rules. In the end, approximately the same number of documents with 

January 7-8 2016 Page 57 of 706
8 

nonexempt unredacted Social Security numbers appeared in both district court cases and 

bankruptcy cases (1,634 and 1,340 cases, respectively). 

We noticed several odd patterns in court documents with unredacted Social Security 

numbers. At least 314 of the unredacted Social Security numbers represent a failed effort by the 

document filer to redact the number from the court document (52 SSNs in district court 

documents and 262 SSNs in bankruptcy court documents). Such failed efforts included 

strikeovers, scratch-outs, blackouts, and use of word processing applications that remove 

sections of text. Despite these redaction efforts, our electronic text search program detected the 

full Social Security number. Of particular concern is the apparent use of word processing 

redaction techniques that retain the Social Security number in the metadata when the document 

is converted to PDF for filing in court. The full Social Security number reappears when the 

apparently redacted text is cut and pasted into a word processing document. As noted, such 

failed efforts to redact individual Social Security numbers can be especially harmful in 

bankruptcy records, where a single document may contain a lengthy list of individual creditors, 

such as the employees of a failed business enterprise. For example, we found 221 individual 

Social Security numbers in a single bankruptcy court document in which the Social Security 

number appears in the metadata of the document despite the filing party's effort to block out 

those numbers. 

The 123 instances of unredacted Social Security numbers appearing on Bankruptcy Form 

21: Statement of Social Security Number or Individual Tax Identification Number are a specific 

source of concern. This form requires the debtor to enter the unredacted Social Security 

number, but the form itself is not supposed to be filed as part of the court record. Yet, forms 

with unredacted Social Security numbers often are combined with numerous other documents 

into a single bankruptcy document filing.

We also made a preliminary assessment of the basis for an exemption from the redaction 

requirement based on information in the specific PACER document containing the Social 

Security number. Often we were not able to interpret the role of such a document in the larger 

context of the litigation, and may not have recognized the basis for an exemption when it was 

not apparent on the face of the document. For example, often we were unable to identify the 

party filing the document based on the document alone and were, therefore, sometimes unable 

January 7-8 2016 Page 58 of 706
9 

to identify documents filed by some pro se litigants who might have waived the redaction 

requirement. 

As indicated in Table 1 and presented in greater detail in Table 3 below, just over 1,000 of 

the unredacted unique Social Security numbers found in this study appear to qualify for an 

exemption from the redaction requirement under the privacy rules adopted by the Judicial 

Conference. The remaining 4,000 unredacted Social Security numbers, appearing in 

approximately 3,000 court documents (see Table 2), are in apparent violation of the privacy 

rules adopted by the Judicial Conference. 

Table	3:	Individual	Social	Security	Numbers Likely	Exempt	from	Redaction	Requirement

																Source 					Total

District

Court

Bankruptcy	

Court

All 1,010 602 408

Non-attorney Bankruptcy	Preparer 357 1	 356

Record	of	a	State	Court	Proceeding 193 168 25

Criminal	Investigation 118 118 0	

Charging	Document/Affidavit 86 86 0	

Apparently Pro	se 82 74 8	

Arrest/Search	Warrant 65 64 1	

Administrative	or	Agency	Proceeding 58 48 10

Court	record	filed	before	Dec.	2007 26 24 2	

Order	Regarding	SS	Benefits 20 18 2	

Filing	Attorney SSN 3	 0	 3	

Forfeiture	Property	Account	Number 1	 1	 0	

The pattern of exemptions from the redaction requirement differs greatly between district 

court and bankruptcy documents. The most common exemption, accounting for more than a 

third of all exemptions, was the including of a Social Security number for a non-attorney 

January 7-8 2016 Page 59 of 706
10 

bankruptcy petition preparer. This number is required by statute to appear on the bankruptcy 

document in unredacted form.9

 

The second most common exemption to the redaction requirement involved Social Security 

numbers appearing as part of a record of a state court proceeding. Such records often involved 

an earlier state court decision in a criminal case or a family law matter. We found numerous 

exempt unredacted Social Security numbers in criminal cases appearing in criminal 

investigation reports, arrest and search warrants, charging documents, and affidavits. We also 

found individual Social Security numbers in 82 documents that appear by the nature of the filing 

to be documents filed by pro se litigants. Such instances may be more accurately regarded as a 

waiver of the privacy protection by the pro se filer. 

 

9 11 U.S.C. § 110.

January 7-8 2016 Page 60 of 706
11 

Comparison with 2010 Study Findings

The previous 2010 study used different metrics and a different search methodology, making a 

comparison between the two studies somewhat difficult. Nevertheless, the greater incidence of 

unredacted Social Security numbers found in this study requires additional explanation. 

The 2010 study searched almost 10 million PACER documents filed during a two-month 

period (November and December 2009) and found 2,899 individual PACER documents with 

one or more unredacted Social Security numbers. This study searched almost 4 million PACER 

documents filed during a one-month period (November 2013) and found 5,431 individual 

PACER documents with one or more unredacted Social Security numbers. While it may appear 

that the number of federal court PACER documents with unredacted Social Security numbers 

has increased since the 2010 study, in fact the greater number found in this study is due to the 

more thorough search methodology used. When the search methodology used in 2010 is used to 

examine 2013 PACER documents, the incidence of documents with one or more unredacted 

Social Security numbers appears to have decreased over time, especially in bankruptcy courts. 

As noted earlier, the current search methodology, unlike that of the previous study, allows 

detection of Social Security numbers in PACER documents initially filed as scanned images. 

This study reprocessed scanned documents through an optical character reader, thereby 

transforming those scanned images into searchable text and allowing identification of 

unredacted Social Security numbers that had previously escaped detection. The previous study 

detected only those Social Security numbers that appeared in searchable text documents and 

overlooked numbers in documents filed as scanned images. The ability of this study to search 

the text of image files allowed identification of Social Security numbers appearing as an 

unbroken series of nine numbers as well as those following the typical format with embedded 

dashes. These differences allowed a more thorough examination and thus a more accurate 

understanding of the extent of unredaction. 

When we examine the recently filed court records using the older search methodology that 

did not include reprocessing with the optical character reader, it becomes apparent that the 

increase in incidence of unredacted Social Security numbers found in this study is due to the 

improved search methodology and not a change in filling practices in the courts. As indicated in 

January 7-8 2016 Page 61 of 706
12 

Table 4, after reprocessing the imaged documents, this study found a total of 5,437 PACER 

documents with one or more unredacted Social Security numbers. Examining the same PACER 

documents using the older methodology found only 757 PACER documents with unredacted 

Social Security numbers. 

Table	4: Identification	of	Social	Security	Numbers	Using	Old	and	New	Search	Methodologies

2013	Documents	

Using	New	Search

Methodology

2013	Documents

Using	Old	Search

Methodology

2009	Documents

Using	Old	Search

Methodology

Total	 Court	

Documents 3,900,841 3,900,841 9,830,721

Total	Docs	with	1+	

SSNs 5,437* 757 2,899

Ratio 1:717 1:5,153 1:3,391

Bankruptcy Court	

Documents 2,725,788 2,725,788 7,738,541

Bankruptcy	Docs	

with	1+	SSNs 2,345* 419 2,244

Ratio 1:1,162 1:6,505 1:3,448

District	Court	

Documents 1,175,053 1,175,053 2,092,080

District	Docs	with	

1+	SSNs 3,092* 338 655

Ratio 1:380 1:3,476 1:3,194

*These	counts	of	PACER	documents	filed	in	November	2013	with	one	or	more	unredacted	Social	Security	numbers	

include	those	instances	of	unrelated	Social	Security	numbers	that	appeared	in	documents	filed	as	scanned	

images,	and	unredacted	Social	Security	numbers	that	appeared	without	dashes	separating	the	segments	of	the	

Social	Security	number. Such	numbers	were	not	detected	using	the	older	search	methodology used	in	the	

previous	study.	

Of particular interest is the apparent drop in the likelihood of finding unredacted Social 

Security numbers in bankruptcy court documents. As indicated in Table 4, when we use the 

January 7-8 2016 Page 62 of 706
13 

older search methodology to allow a meaningful comparison, the likelihood of a bankruptcy 

court document having one or more unredacted Social Security numbers has decreased by 

almost half (from 1 in 3,448 documents in the 2010 study to 1 in 6,505 documents in the current 

study). District court documents show only a modest decrease in the likelihood of a document 

including one or more unredacted Social Security numbers. 

Of course, these findings also mean that the incidence of unredacted Social Security 

numbers in PACER documents scanned as images was far greater in 2009 than suggested by that 

earlier report. While the presence in court documents of any private information that should be 

redacted under the rules is cause for concern, this study also suggests that the federal courts have 

made progress in recent years in reducing the incidence of unredacted Social Security numbers 

in federal court documents, especially in bankruptcy court documents. 

January 7-8 2016 Page 63 of 706
14 

Appendix A: Methodology

We sought to identify recently filed federal court documents containing one or more unredacted

Social Security numbers. The Federal Rules of Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy, and Appellate 

Procedure (see Appendix B) require redaction of Social Security numbers, taxpayeridentification numbers, birth dates, the names of minors, financial account numbers, and, in 

criminal cases, home addresses. Our study sought to identify only documents containing Social 

Security numbers, including Social Security numbers designated in the document as taxpayer 

identification numbers and financial account numbers. This study did not examine documents 

filed in appellate cases or filed in paper form. 

We identified and downloaded a total of 3,900,841 individual PACER documents using a 

computer scripting language to query federal court electronic case management data in the 

district and bankruptcy courts’ CM/ECF databases. The Structure Query Language (SQL) 

program identified all documents filed in the district and bankruptcy courts in November 2013. 

We excluded all sealed court records and other documents that were designated as unavailable 

on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. 

After downloading the documents we used Adobe Acrobat software to perform optical 

character recognition (OCR) on the individual documents to convert any static PDF characters 

into machine-readable text. A total of 3,063,235 PACER documents were modified as a result of 

the OCR. All documents from one bankruptcy district were excluded from the analysis because 

the documents were not maintained in a format that allowed use of the OCR program. An 

additional 27,424 PACER documents (less than 1% of the total number of documents) were 

excluded because of a variety of problems that arose while trying to use the OCR program. We 

found a few files in almost every district that could not be read by the Acrobat OCR or search 

program. After searching the files in a district we would receive a message such as “Search has 

skipped 137 files because either the files are corrupt or you don’t have permission to open 

them.” In addition to indicating that some of these files had restricted access or were corrupt 

and unable to be opened, we believe this message also indicated that some of these files may have 

January 7-8 2016 Page 64 of 706
15 

been saved in an older version of Acrobat or had embedded graphics defeating the search 

program.	

Using functionality built into Adobe Acrobat we were able to detect Social Security number 

patterns (i.e., 123-45-6789) that might reside within such documents. We also detected 

unbroken nine-digit strings of numbers near text that included the words “Social Security” or 

“SSN.” 

We then examined the search output files and visually reviewed over 17, 205 court 

documents to determine if the string of characters appeared to be a valid Social Security number. 

Where multiple numbers appeared in a single document, we examined each number looking for 

information indicating that it was in fact a Social Security number. For example, multiple Social 

Security numbers may appear in a bankruptcy filing for a business in which the former 

employees are listed as individual creditors. 

Numerous such instances were not Social Security numbers. For example, we found such a 

pattern of digits in misspecified telephone numbers and extended zip codes. We found such 

patterns in numbers that were specifically designated as nonfinancial account numbers, claim 

numbers, model numbers, grievance numbers, real estate parcel numbers, bar membership 

numbers, and student ID numbers. In some instances such numbers may have been derived 

from an individual’s Social Security number, but unless the context made clear that the number 

was a Social Security account number or a financial account number, we did not code the value 

as falling within the privacy protection of the rules. Nine-digit numbers following the typical 

Social Security number pattern were often found after the name of an individual, and that alone 

with no contrary designation was coded as a Social Security number. For example, such 

numbers following a name on a pay stub in a bankruptcy proceeding were regarded as Social 

Security numbers. We also coded such numbers designated “tax identification numbers” in 

income tax filings as Social Security numbers. 

Social Security numbers were then reviewed in the context of the document to determine 

whether the entry qualified for an exemption to the privacy protection under the rules. While 

there was broad agreement among the coders regarding whether an entry qualified as a Social 

Security number, there was less agreement regarding whether such an entry qualified for one or 

more exemptions. Such a determination often required an assessment of the context of the 

January 7-8 2016 Page 65 of 706
16 

document in which the Social Security number appeared. This assessment became difficult when 

a single large court document was broken into two or more parts to ease the public through the 

PACER system. For that reason, we construed the exemptions liberally, coding an entry as 

exempt whenever there was a reasonable likelihood that such a document might qualify for 

exemption. 

The exemptions under the various rules were transformed into the following coding 

categories and assigned to the unredacted Social Security numbers: 

0 = Valid SSN with no apparent exemption 

1= Not a SSN 

Apparent Exemptions: 

2 = Record of a state court proceeding 

3 = Non-attorney bankruptcy preparer 

4 = Apparently pro se filing (suggesting waiver) 

5 = Record of administrative agency proceeding 

6 = SSN of attorney filing document 

7 = Criminal charging document/affidavit 

8 = Court record filed before December 2007 

9 = Criminal arrest/search warrant 

10 = Criminal investigation 

11 = Order regarding SS benefits 

12 = Forfeiture property account number 

January 7-8 2016 Page 66 of 706
17 

Appendix B: Federal Procedural Rules Protecting Individual Privacy

Federal	Rule	of Civil Procedure	Rule	5.2—Privacy	Protection	for	Filings	Made	with	the	Court

(a)	Redacted	Filings.	Unless	the	court	orders	otherwise,	in	an	electronic	or	paper	filing	with	the	

court	that	contains	an	individual’s	security	number,	taxpayer-identification	number, or birth	

date,	the	name	of	an	individual	known	to	be	a	minor, or	a	financial-account number,	a	party	or	

nonparty	making	the	filing	may	include	only:	

(1)	the	last	four	digits	of	the	social-security	number	and	taxpayer-identification	number;	

(2)	the	year	of	the	individual's	birth;	

(3)	the	minor’s	initials;	and

(4)	the	last	four	digits	of	the	financial-account	number.

(b)	Exemptionsfrom the	Redaction	Requirement. The	redaction	requirement	does	not	apply	to	

the	following:	

(1)	a	financial-account	number	that	identifies	the	property	allegedly	subject	to forfeiture	in	a	

forfeiture	proceeding;	

(2)	the	record	of	an	administrative	or	agency	proceeding;	

(3)	the	official	record of	a	state-court proceeding;

(4)	the	record of	a	court or	tribunal,	if	that	record	was	not subject	to	the	redaction

requirement	when	originally	filed;	

(5)	a	filing	covered	by	Rule	5.2(c)	or	(d);	and	

(6)	a	pro se filing in	an	action	brought under 28 U.S.C.	§§	2241,	2254,	or 2255.	

(c)	Limitations on	Remote	Access	to Electronic	Files;	Social-Security	Appeals	and	Immigration

Cases. Unless	the	court	orders	otherwise,	in	an	action	for	benefits	under	the	Social	Security	Act,	

and	in	an	action	or proceeding	relating	to	an	order of	removal,	to	relief from	removal,	or	to	

immigration	benefits	or	detention,	access	to	an	electronic	file	is	authorized	as	follows:	

(1)	the	parties	and	their	attorneys	may	have	remote	electronic	access	to	any	part	of the	case	

file,	including	the	administrative	record;	

(2)	any	other	person	may	have	electronic	access	to	the	full	record	at	the	courthouse,	but	

may	have	remote	electronic	access only	to:	

(A)	the	docket	maintained	by	the	court;	and	

(B)	an	opinion, order,	judgment,	or	other	disposition	of	the	court,	but not	any	other

part	of	the	case	file	or	the	administrative	record.	

January 7-8 2016 Page 67 of 706
18 

(d)	Filings	Made	Under	Seal. The court	may	order	that	a	filing be	made	under	seal	without	

redaction.	The court may	later	unseal	the	filing	or	order	the	person	who	made	the	filing	to	file	a	

redacted	version	for	the	public	record.	

(e)	Protective	Orders. For good	cause,	the	court	may	by order in	a	case:	

(1)	require	redaction	of	additional	information;	or

(2)	limit	or	prohibit	a	nonparty’s	remote	electronic	access	to	a	document	filed	with	the	

court.	

(f)	Option	for	Additional	Unredacted	Filing	Under	Seal.	A	person	making	a	redacted	filing	may	

also	file	an	unredacted	copy under	seal.	The court must	retain	the	unredacted	copy	as	part	of

the	record.

(g)	Option	for	Filing	a	Reference	List.	A	filing	that	contains	redacted	information	may	be filed

together	with	a	reference list that	identifies	each	item	of	redacted	information	and	specifies	an	

appropriate	identifier	that	uniquely corresponds	to	each	item	listed.	The list must be filed under

seal	and	may	be	amended	as	of	right.	Any	reference	in	the	case	to	a	listed	identifier	will	be

construed	to	refer	to	the	corresponding	item	of	information.

(h)	Waiver	of	Protection	of	Identifiers.	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.	

January 7-8 2016 Page 68 of 706
19 

Federal	Rule	of Criminal	Procedure	Rule	49.1—Privacy	Protection	for	Filings	Made	

with	the	Court

(a)	Redacted	Filings.	Unless	the	court	orders	otherwise,	in	an	electronic	or	paper	filing	with	the	

court	that	contains	an	individual’s	social-security	number,	taxpayer-identification	number, or

birth	date,	the	name	of	an	individual	known	to	be	a	minor,	a	financial-account number,	or	the	

home	address	of	an	individual,	a	party	or	nonparty	making	the	filing	may	include	only:	

(1)	the	last	four	digits	of	the	social-security	number	and	taxpayer-identification	number;	

(2)	the	year	of	the	individual’s	birth;	

(3)	the	minor’s	initials;

(4)	the	last	four	digits	of	the	financial-account	number;	and	

(5)	the	city	and	state	of	the	home	address.	

(b)	Exemptionsfrom the	Redaction	Requirement.	The	redaction	requirement	does	not	apply	to	

the	following:	

(1)	a	financial-account	number or	real	property	address	that	identifies	the	property allegedly	

subject	to	forfeiture	in	a	forfeiture	proceeding;	

(2)	the	record	of	an	administrative	or	agency	proceeding;	

(3)	the	official	record of	a	state-court proceeding;

(4)	the	record of	a	court or	tribunal,	if	that	record	is	not subject	to	the	redaction requirement	

when	originally	filed;	

(5)	a	filing	covered	by	Rule	49.1(d);	

(6)	a	pro se filing in	an	action	brought under 28 U.S.C.	§§	2241, 2254, or 2255;

(7)	a	court filing	that	is	related	to	a	criminal	matter	or	investigation	and	that	is prepared	

before	the	filing of	a	criminal	charge	or is not filed	as	part	of	any	docketed criminal	case;	

(8)	an	arrest	or	search	warrant;	and	

(9)	a	charging	document	and	an	affidavit	filed in support of	any	charging	document.	

(c)	Immigration	Cases.	A	filing	in	an	action	brought	under	28	U.S.C.	§	2241	that	relates	to	the	

petitioner’s	immigration	rights	is governed by	Federal	Rule	of Civil Procedure 5.2.

(d)	Filings	Made	Under Seal. The court	may	order	that	a	filing be	made	under	seal	without	

redaction.	The court may	later	unseal	the	filing	or	order	the	person	who	made	the	filing	to	file	a	

redacted	version	for	the	public	record.

January 7-8 2016 Page 69 of 706
20 

(e)	Protective	Orders. For good	cause,	the	court	may	by order in	a	case:

(1)	require	redaction	of	additional	information;	or

(2)	limit	or	prohibit	a	nonparty’sremote	electronic	access	to	a	document	filed	with	the	

court.	

(f)	Option	for	Additional	Unredacted	Filing	Under	Seal.	A	person	making	a	redacted	filing	may	

also	file	an	unredacted	copy	under	seal.	The	court	must	retain	the	unredacted	copy	as	part	of

the	record.

(g)	Option	for	Filing	a	Reference	List.	A	filing	that	contains	redacted	information	may	be filed

together	with	a	reference	list	that	identifies	each	item	of	redacted	information	and	specifies	an	

appropriate	identifier	that	uniquely corresponds	to	each	item	listed.	The list must be filed under

seal	and	may	be	amended	as	of	right.	Any	reference	in	the	case	to	a	listed	identifier	will be

construed	to	refer	to	the	corresponding	item	of	information.	

(h)	Waiver	of	Protection	of	Identifiers.	A	person	waives	the	protection	of	Rule	49.1(a)	as	to	the	

person’s	own	information	by	filing	it	without	redaction	and	not	under	seal.	

January 7-8 2016 Page 70 of 706
21 

Federal	Rules	of	Bankruptcy	Procedure	Rule	9037—Privacy	Protection	for	Filings	Made	

with	the	Court

(a)	Redacted	Filings. Unless	the	court orders	otherwise,	in	an	electronic	or	paper	filing	made	

with	the court	that	contains	an	individual's	social-security	number,	taxpayer-identification	

number, or	birth	date,	the	name	of	an	individual,	other	than	the	debtor,	known	to	be	and	

identified	as	a	minor, or	a	financial-account	number,	a	party	or	nonparty	making the	filing	may	

include	only:

(1)	the	last	four	digits	of	the	social-security	number	and	taxpayer-identification	number;	

(2)	the	year	of	the	individual's	birth;	

(3)	the	minor's	initials;	and	

(4)	the	last	four	digits	of	the	financial-account	number.

(b)	Exemptionsfrom the	Redaction	Requirement. The	redaction	requirement	does	not	apply	to	

the	following:	

(1)	a	financial-account	number	that	identifies	the	property	allegedly	subject	to forfeiture	in	a	

forfeiture	proceeding;	

(2)	the	record of	an	administrative	or	agency	proceeding unless filed	with	a	proof of claim;	

(3)	the	official	record of	a	state-court proceeding;

(4)	the	record of	a	court or	tribunal,	if	that	record	was	not subject	to	the	redaction	

requirement	when	originally	filed;	

(5)	a	filing covered by subdivision (c) of	this	rule;	and	

(6)	a	filing	that	is	subject	to	§	110	of	the	Code.	

(c)	Filings	Made	Under	Seal. The court	may	order	that	a	filing be	made	under	seal	without	

redaction.	The court may	later	unseal	the	filing or order	the	entity	that	made	the	filing	to	file	a	

redacted	version	for	the	public	record.	

(d)	Protective	Orders. For	cause,	the	court	may	by	order	in	a	case	under	the	Code:	

(1)	require	redaction	of	additional	information;	or

(2)	limit or prohibit	a	nonparty's	remote	electronic	access	to	a	document filed	with	the	

court.	

(e)	Option for	Additional	Unredacted	Filing	Under	Seal. An	entity	making	a	redacted	filing	may	

also	file	an	unredacted	copy under	seal.	The court must	retain	the	unredacted	copy	as	part	of

the	record.

January 7-8 2016 Page 71 of 706
22 

(f)	Option for	Filing	a	Reference	List.	A	filing	that	contains	redacted	information	may	be filed

together	with	a	reference list that	identifies	each	item	of	redacted	information	and	specifies	

an	appropriate	identifier	that	uniquely corresponds	to	each	item	listed.	The list must be filed

under seal	and	may	be	amended	as	of	right.	Any	reference	in	the	case	to	a	listed	identifier	

will be	construed	to	refer	to	the	corresponding	item	of	information.	

(g)	Waiver of Protection of Identifiers. An	entity	waives	the	protection	of subdivision	(a)	as	to	

the	entity's	own	information	by	filing	it	without	redaction	and	not	under	seal.	

January 7-8 2016 Page 72 of 706