Opinion
2:22-cv-00304-JCM-DJA
08-01-2022
Justin Ornelas; Jasmine Ornelas; and J.O., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Justin Ornelas, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Vokhidzmon Abdukarimov; and Does I through X, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the parties' joint scheduling report. (ECF No. 17). Because the parties' report does not comply with the Local Rules, the Court denies it without prejudice. The Court also takes this opportunity to remind the parties that the names of minor children must not be filed, only their initials.
The parties' plan is missing the date from which they measure their discovery period and the number of days required for discovery measured from that date. LR 26-6(b)(1). These figures are necessary to the Court's special scheduling review. The Court thus denies the plan without prejudice.
Under Local Rule IC 6-1(a)(2), parties must refrain from including the full names of minor children in filings. “If involvement of a minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child should be used.” Id. “The responsibility for redacting these personal identifies rests solely with attorneys and the parties. The clerk will not review each filing for compliance with this rule.” LR IC 6-1(c).
Here, the parties have included J.O.'s full name throughout the docket. While certain filings are sealed, others are publicly available. Defendants will be responsible for redacting J.O.'s name from the petition for removal (ECF No. 1) and answer (ECF No. 2) and re-filing the redacted versions. The Court will also order that the publicly available documents be redacted where appropriate as a one-time courtesy. The Court outlines where J.O.'s name shall be redacted-or updated to “J.O.” where necessary-from publicly filed documents below:
• ECF No. 4 in the caption.
• The docket text of the public entry between ECF Nos. 5 and 6 dated February 18, 2022.
• ECF No. 8 in the caption; and page 2, line 6.
• ECF No. 9 in the caption.
• ECF No. 10 in the caption.
• ECF No. 11 in the docket text of that entry.
• ECF No. 13 in the caption (including under the list of attorneys on page 1, line 14); on page 7, lines 20-21; and in the docket text of that entry.
• ECF No. 15 in the caption; on page 1, lines 25-26; on page 5, lines 11-12; and in the docket text of that entry.
• ECF No. 16 in the caption; on page 1, lines 25-26 and; on page 5, lines 11-12; and in the docket text of that entry.
• ECF No. 17 in the caption (including under the list of attorneys on page 1, line 14); on page 6, lines 20-21; and in the docket text of that entry.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' joint scheduling report (ECF No. 17) is denied without prejudice. The parties shall submit an amended proposed discovery plan and scheduling order by August 15, 2022.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall redact J.O.'s name from the petition for removal (ECF No. 1) and answer (ECF No. 2) and re-file the redacted versions.
IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that the Clerk's office is kindly directed to redact J.O.'s name from the above-listed pages and portions of the above-listed public filings.