Opinion
8:19-cv-02950-TPB-AEP
01-26-2022
JOSHUA LENZ, TRACI LENZ, JASON NORQUIST, AMIE NORQUIST, RYAN MORGAN, GARY ELBON, KAYLA ELBON, JASON GENRICH, and JENNY GENRICH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE MICHAELS ORGANIZATION, LLC, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
ANTHONY E. PORCELLI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause came before the Court for hearing on January 25, 2022 upon the parties' request to conduct a hearing regarding whether Defendants may redact responsive documents produced to Plaintiffs and the parties' filings (Docs. 130, 131).
Generally, the caselaw cited by Plaintiffs in support of a blanket prohibition of redactions in relevant documents is not persuasive. Contrary, the caselaw and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for such a measure allowing for certain redactions in relevant documents. See In re: Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 14-24009-CV, 2016 WL 1460143, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2016) (finding that the defendants could redact irrelevant information in relevant documents subject to certain categories). Specifically, Rule 26 contemplates the Court's discretion in the discovery process. Therefore, for the reasons stated at the hearing, Defendants are not prohibited from redacting portions of responsive documents pursuant to the limited categories delineated in Defendants' filing (Doc. 131) and at the hearing.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida.
cc: Counsel of Record