Opinion
21-cv-5251 (VSB)
12-09-2021
WARREN MATTHEW GIDDINGS, Plaintiff, v. OANDA CORP. et al., Defendants.
ORDER
VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
I am in receipt of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion to “add the exhibit enclosed in the motion.” (Doc. 43.) The exhibit appears to be a handwritten letter that Plaintiff purportedly sent to Defendant Oanda Corp., dated April 20, 2020. For reasons unexplained in the filing, the letter includes Plaintiff's bank, email address, bank account username, password, social security number, and security questions.
Although Plaintiff is pro se, he is responsible for familiarizing himself with the Court's procedural rules related to litigation as well as my Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases (“Individual Rules”). Specifically, I direct Plaintiff to Rule 5(B)(i) of my Individual Rules which provides that “[p]arties should not include in their public filings, unless necessary, the five categories of ‘sensitive information' (i.e., social security numbers [use the last four digits only], names of minor children [use the initials only], dates of birth [use the year only], financial account numbers [use the last four digits only], and home addresses [use only the City and State]).” Plaintiff is advised to redact sensitive financial information from future public filings consistent with my Individual Rules. Plaintiff should be aware that any documents Plaintiff sends to the Pro Se Office for filing are likely to be publicly filed on the docket and will be able to be viewed by members of the public, unless a request to seal is filed and granted.
Plaintiff's motion has been electronically filed with the exhibit, (Doc. 43), on the Court's Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system, and, based upon the information contained in the exhibit, I find good cause to seal the document and remove the electronic version of the document from the ECF system. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to seal Doc. 43 so that it is only viewable to the Court and Plaintiff.
The instant motion is a request to add an exhibit. (Doc. 42.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 29, 2021. (Doc. 30.) The Second Amended Complaint names three defendants: the United States, Oanda Corp., and Max Brauer. (Id.) The U.S. Marshals Service has served the summons and complaint on the United States, (Doc. 37), and the United States has until January 3, 2022 to respond. (Id.) It appears that the U.S. Marshals Service has not yet served the summons and complaint on Oanda Corp. or Max Brauer, since no affidavit of service has been filed for those defendants. (See Docs. 15 & 42.) Plaintiff's request to add an exhibit is inappropriate at this time, and Plaintiff's motion at Doc. 43 is therefore DENIED.
Plaintiff has previously filed several premature requests like the instant motion, which were all denied. (See Docs. 26, 31, 39.) Plaintiff is directed to familiarize himself with the progression of litigation-including by reviewing the Motions Guide provided in his information package-and to make filings at the appropriate time. If Plaintiff has any questions about Court procedures and filing requirements, he should contact the Pro Se Office. However, the Pro Se Office cannot provide legal advice. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court to seal Doc. 43 so that it is only viewable to the Court and Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court terminate the gavel pending at docket entry 43 and mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff, along with a copy of my Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases and a copy of the Motions Guide.
SO ORDERED.