Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT A. BRAYSHAW,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv272-SPM/WCS

OFFICER ANNETTE P GARRETT, 

OFFICER MICHAEL E. DILMORE, 

and the CITY OF TALLAHASSEE,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Plaintiff Robert Brayshaw has filed a document entitled "response to City of

Tallahassee's request to court for 'unconstitutional gag-order' against Rob Brayshaw." 

Doc. 26. The only motion filed by the Defendant City of Tallahassee in this case is a

motion to dismiss, doc. 21, filed on October 6, 2010. Plaintiff has already filed a

response to that motion. Doc. 23. A ruling will be entered in due course.

Plaintiff's response, doc. 26, asserts that he received an email from opposing

counsel requesting that counsel "be notified first before any filings are filed before this

court as has been done today." Id., at 1. Plaintiff has attached copies of

correspondence to that response. Doc. 26.

Case 4:10-cv-00272-SPM-WCS Document 27 Filed 11/03/10 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

Court rules prohibit furnishing copies of such correspondence except when

necessary as an exhibit when seeking relief from this Court. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(F)(2). 

As Plaintiff has not filed a motion, and no motion was filed by Defendant to which

Plaintiff has properly filed a response, the attachments have not been considered.

Plaintiff is advised, however, that any party who files a motion in this Court, with

the limited exception of a few specific types of motions, must "confer with counsel for

the opposing party and shall file with the court, at the time of filing a motion, a statement

certifying that counsel or the pro se party has conferred with counsel for the opposing

party in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised or has attempted

to so confer but, for good cause stated, was unsuccessful." N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B). 

Thus, it is generally necessary for Plaintiff and opposing counsel to confer on motions

which are filed prior to the document being filed. 

Additionally, Plaintiff indicates on page two of his response that filings have been

sent to the Defendants at their homes addresses "because they are being sued as

private individuals and not only as police officers in their official capacities." Doc. 26, p.

2. Plaintiff must confer and communicate with opposing counsel in this case who

represent Defendants, and not directly with the Defendants. Plaintiff shall not send mail

to the individuals who are represented by counsel.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel acceptance of service. Doc. 24. Plaintiff

indicates he is mailing documents to the two individuals named as Defendants in this

case. Id. He states that Defendant Garrett has refused the mail. Id. 

Case No. 4:10cv272-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00272-SPM-WCS Document 27 Filed 11/03/10 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff is advised that on October 6, 2010, a notice of appearance and waiver of

service was filed for both Defendants Garrett and Dilmore. Doc. 20.1 Plaintiff is

reminded that in the order directing service, he was directed to deliver a copy of the

amended complaint to each Defendant. Doc. 7. Thereafter, Plaintiff is "required to mail

to the attorney for Defendant a copy of every pleading or other paper, including letters,

submitted for consideration by the Court. Id., at 4 (emphasis added). Plaintiff shall not

continue to send to the individual Defendants any documents he seeks to file, but only

to opposing counsel who represents Defendants.

Defendants have filed a response to Plaintiff's motion, requesting that Plaintiff be

ordered to cease and desist making direct communication with the individual

Defendants or their families. Doc. 25. The request is not filed as a motion, but Plaintiff

is advised that should such a motion be filed, it will be granted. It is believed that this

cautionary order to Plaintiff will suffice. Plaintiff shall only communicate with opposing

counsel as is the rule in litigation. Furthermore, this is civil litigation requiring civility

between the parties. Plaintiff shall refrain from bringing extraneous matters into this

litigation and from making personal and derogatory comments. 

Additionally, Plaintiff has now published Defendant Garrett and Dilmore's

addresses in court records, which are public documents. Docs. 23 and 24. Florida law

protects the confidentiality of the addresses of law enforcement, for good reason. 

Rather than put the Clerk to the laborious task of redacting the addresses, those

documents shall be placed under seal. Plaintiff has copies since he filed them. Plaintiff

1

 The notice incorrectly was entered on the docket as "Waiver of Service Returned

Unexecuted." As it is actually a waiver of service, Defendants' counsel should correct

the docket entry.

Case No. 4:10cv272-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00272-SPM-WCS Document 27 Filed 11/03/10 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

is warned that he shall not again file a document with the address of a law enforcement

officer in the body of the document.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel acceptance of service, doc. 24, is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff shall not communicate directly with the individual Defendants. All

communications in connection with this case shall be with the attorney for the

Defendants.

3. Plaintiff shall not file another document in this case that contains the address

of a law enforcement officer.

4. Plaintiff shall cease his personal attacks and name-calling in documents filed

in this case. Plaintiff is permitted to argue the issues, but must do so with courtesy and

respect for this court and the judicial process.

5. Plaintiff is warned that this order must be obeyed and will be enforced with

sanctions should the specific provisions be violated. 

6. The Clerk of Court shall place docs. 23 and 24 under seal. Should a member

of the public wish to view these documents, a further order will be entered requiring

redaction of addresses.

Case No. 4:10cv272-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00272-SPM-WCS Document 27 Filed 11/03/10 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

7. The Clerk of Court shall return this file to me upon receipt of an answer to the

amended complaint or similar response from Defendants Garrett and Dilmore, or no

later than November 6, 2010.

DONE AND ORDERED on November 3, 2010.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv272-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00272-SPM-WCS Document 27 Filed 11/03/10 Page 5 of 5