Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00508-PAB
04-11-2012
ROYCE FERGUSON, Petitioner, v. EMILY FERGUSON, Respondent.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER
This now-dismissed matter is before the Court on petitioner's continued failure to comply with orders of the Court. On February 29, 2012, the Court ordered [Docket No. 5] petitioner to re-file redacted copies of his Verified Application for Immediate Return of the Minor Children to Petitioner ("Application") [Docket No. 1] and proposed Summons for Verified Application for the Immediate Return of the Minor Children [Docket No. 2] that comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 2, 2012. Petitioner failed to comply with that order. On March 6, 2012, the Court ordered [Docket No. 8] that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 7, 2012, petitioner re-file without filing restrictions redacted copies of those documents, as well as the Return of Service [Docket No. 6], and that petitioner show cause why he failed to comply with the Court's February 29 order. On March 6, 2012, petitioner filed redacted copies of Docket Nos. 1 and 6. See Docket Nos. 9, 10. Petitioner, however, did not re-file Docket No. 2 or show cause why he failed to comply with the Court's order.
Consequently, on March 8, 2012, the Court ordered [Docket No. 13] petitioner to re-file without filing restrictions a redacted copy of Docket No. 2 that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 9, 2012. The Court further ordered petitioner to show cause why he failed to comply with the Court's February 29 and March 6 orders and why the Court should not impose some form of sanction for the repeated failure to comply with the Court's orders. On March 9, 2012, petitioner re-filed without filing restrictions a copy of Docket No. 2 [Docket No. 14] that fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) insofar as petitioner included the entirety of the minor children's last names. Furthermore, a review of Docket No. 9, the re-filed Application, reveals un-redacted information that is subject to the privacy protections of Rule 5.2(a). See, e.g., Docket No. 9 at 2, ¶ 4; Docket No. 9-2 at 1; Docket No. 9-3 at 4.
Petitioner initially failed to protect the privacy rights of minor children as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). Upon having that failure remedied by the Court, petitioner has since failed to fully comply with court orders and Rule 5.2(a), resulting in continued public access to the children's protected information. Petitioner's counsel has filed an affidavit in response to the orders to show cause [Docket No. 15], but fails to show good cause for the failure, through the present, to fully comply with the Court's orders and Rule 5.2(a). Moreover, the affidavit omits any explanation for the failure to respond to the Court's first order to show cause. Petitioner's counsel is unreasonably multiplying these simple proceedings and wasting judicial resources. The Court will defer deciding what, if any, sanction to impose until such time as petitioner files documents that comply with this Court's orders and with Rule 5.2(a)'s privacy protections while ensuring appropriate public access to court proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Docket Nos. 9 and 14 shall be restricted at level one. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner shall re-file without filing restrictions redacted copies of Docket Nos. 9 and 14 that comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) and shall certify that all of petitioner's filings in this matter, including all exhibits thereto, comply with Rule 5.2(a) on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 16, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge