Opinion
CASE NO. 17-40141 PROC. NO. 17-4004
12-12-2017
IN RE: DAVID MARK BURKHARDT JENNIFER ANN BURKHARDT Debtors STATE OF INDIANA on the relation of the INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Plaintiff v. DAVID MARK BURKHARDT Defendant
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDACT
On 12/12/2017
This court has repeatedly criticized the plaintiff's practice of "pleading by exhibit." See e.g., Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Jewell, 554 B.R. 169 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2016); Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Washington, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 1864 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2016). In this case that means the court has been presented with a seven page complaint accompanied by 35 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff's propensity of pleading by exhibit has necessitated the motion now before the court. One of those exhibits - Exhibit B - contains personal identifying information that should not appear on the public record, see, Fed. R. Bankr. P. Rule 9037; and so plaintiff wants the court to restrict access to that particular exhibit. Yet, rather than seeking permission to refile the entire complaint and all of its accompanying, but redacted, exhibits, the plaintiff wants the court to authorize the filing of a redacted version of only exhibit B, and restrict access to the original; leaving the rest of the original filing untouched. The result would be that the complaint and five of its six exhibits would appear in one place on the docket and the sixth exhibit would be found someplace else.
The court previously denied a similar request in another adversary proceeding filed by the same plaintiff, see, Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Bell, Case No. 17-10885, Adv Pro No. 17-1050, Decision and Order Denying Motion to Redact, dated Oct. 12, 2017, and many of reasons for doing so are equally applicable here. First, the complaint and all of its accompanying exhibits are part of a single filing found at docket entry number 1. The court knows of no authority which would allow the redaction and refiling of only a portion of a single filing, rather resubmitting the entire document with the appropriate portions of it redacted, and the plaintiff has provided none. Although the court has the technical ability to disable one or more of the hyperlinks associated with the complaint's various exhibits, doing so will cause problems and potentially confuse anyone accessing the complaint from the docket. They will read the complaint and its various references to the attached exhibit B, but there will be no such exhibit and no ready explanation for its absence. Only by combing through the entire docket would the reader discover that the original exhibit has been replaced by a redacted version which is found at an entirely different place. Plaintiff's style of pleading has created the present problem and solving that problem should not create difficulties for others. They can, and therefore should, be avoided by resubmitting the entire filing; not just a portion of it.
Plaintiff's motion to redact, filed on December 5, 2017, is DENIED, without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Robert E . Grant
Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court