UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 26, 2011
REDDING BANK OF COMMERCE,
SCOTT D. JOHANNESSEN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff Redding Bank of Commerce ("Plaintiff") seeks redress from Defendants Scott and Lorrie Johannessen ("Defendants") for failure to repay monies owed to Plaintiff. Before the Court is a Motion filed by Plaintiff to Replace ECF No. 12 and its attachments with appropriately-redacted versions of the documents (ECF No. 40). /// ///
As a matter of background, Plaintiff filed their original complaint in Shasta County Superior Court. Defendants removed the case to this Court, and redacted certain pertinent information regarding the dispute, including Defendants' bank account number, and other sensitive information, in compliance with Eastern District Local Rule 140(a). During the course of litigation, Plaintiff filed the exact same documents as attachments to an Opposition (See ECF No. 12). However, Plaintiff failed to redact sensitive portions of the document.
Eastern District Local Rule 140(a) requires any party filing electronic documents with the Court to "omit or, where reference is necessary, partially redact" sensitive information such as financial account numbers, social security numbers, or any other circumstances where federal law requires redaction.
By failing to redact sensitive portions of their materials, Plaintiff is in violation of Local Rule 140(a). As a result of their failure to comply with the local rules, Plaintiff's counsel shall personally pay sanctions in the amount of $250.00 to Defendant's counsel no later than ten (10) days from the date this Order is electronically filed. Plaintiff is further ordered to provide receipt and confirmation of payment with the Court no later than ten (10) days from the date this Order is electronically filed. /// /// /// /// ///
Within the same time frame, Plaintiff is additionally required to re-file ECF No. 12, and all attachments and materials at issue in properly-redacted form. To ameliorate any concerns of further dissemination, the Clerk is ordered to seal the current ECF No. 12, and replace it with Plaintiff's redacted version once it is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.