Stone v. La. Dep't of Revenue

Full title: JOANNE STONE v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Oct 23, 2014

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2182 SECTION I (E.D. La. Oct. 23, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2182 SECTION I

10-23-2014

JOANNE STONE v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is an amended motion¹ filed by plaintiff, Joanne Stone, to seal all or part of the record in this case. Plaintiff believes that the record of this lawsuit "is preventing [her] from employment, getting jobs and working."² The Court previously denied a similar motion filed by plaintiff to seal the entire record in this case, noting in particular that plaintiff had not "satisfied Local Rule 5.6 by articulating what specific confidential information should be sealed, or why sealing is necessary or authorized by governing case law."³

1 R. Doc. No. 8.

2 R. Doc. No. 8, at 1.

3 R. Doc. No. 7, at 2.

In her amended motion to seal, plaintiff specifies that the attachments to her complaint should be sealed because they "include[] specific confidential information of medical, personal, personnel, and governmental tax information, and governmental work."⁴ The Court has reviewed the materials specified by plaintiff and agrees that they include personal identifying information. Pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff should have redacted that information, filed it under seal originally, or refrained from filing it at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (establishing procedures to limit disclosure of "an individual's social-security number, taxpayer- identification number, or birth date"). Although plaintiff waived the protections of Rule 5.2 by filing those materials into the record herself, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h), considering her pro se status, the Court finds it appropriate to seal the attachments to the complaint to limit further dissemination of that personal identifying information. To the extent that plaintiff again urges the Court to seal any other portion of the record, the motion is denied for the reasons set forth in the Court's prior order and reasons. Accordingly,

4 R. Doc. No. 8, at 1-2.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART and that the attachments to plaintiff's complaint⁵ are hereby SEALED.

5 R. Doc. No. 1-1, at 9-128.
--------

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in all other respects.

New Orleans, Louisiana, October 23, 2014.

/s/_________

LANCE M. AFRICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE