Avenmarg v. Humboldt County

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 29, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-05891
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 DEBRA AVENMARG, Case No. 19-cv-05891-RMI

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 10 v. ADMINISTTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE REDACTED PARAGRAPHS OF 11 HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al., FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 36

13 14 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to file the First Amended Complaint with redactions. 15 Pl.’s Mot. (Dkt. 36). Plaintiff requests that she be allowed to file a redacted version of the First 16 Amended Complaint and a sealed unredacted version of the First Amended Complaint in order to 17 protect the identity of a non-party minor. Furthermore, Plaintiff requests to use fictitious initials in 18 reference to the non-party minor within the First Amended Complaint and throughout the 19 pendency of this action. Defendant Humboldt County opposes the motion while Defendant Blanck 20 has filed no opposition. See Def.’s Opp. (Dkt. 37). 21 First, it must be noted that Plaintiff is seeking this protection for a non-party minor. Thus, 22 this is not a case where a minor plaintiff is seeking anonymity through counsel and aided by a 23 guardian ad litem. Neither party in this action represents the non-party minor’s interests. Second, 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 restricts the names of minor individuals to their initials. 25 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the use of fictitious initials, is a request for protections beyond 26 that of Rule 5.2. 27 While the court does consider the public’s interest in judicial proceedings to be of 1 and the use of the minor’s actual initials would serve no additional public interest. Further, 2 || Plaintiff's proposed redactions comprise only a few words from 12 different sentences in a 38 3 page Amended Complaint. The proposed redacted words would not deprive the public interest. 4 || Instead, the redactions would serve to protect the “strong public policy in favor of protecting the 5 identity of minor children,” Sims v. Lakeside Sch., No. CO06-1412RSM, 2007 WL 4219347, at *1 6 || (W.D. Wash. Nov. 28, 2007) (finding that “minor students’ names deserve protection not only by 7 redacting their names, but also by replacing those names with pseudonyms.”). Taking into account 8 || the fact that the non-party minor’s interests are unrepresented in this matter and not fully set forth, 9 || and that the potential prejudice to Defendants is minimal, if existent, the court finds that Plaintiffs 10 || requests to refer to the non-party minor with pseudonym initials and to redact portions of the First 11 Amended Complaint are appropriate. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Administrative Motion to file the First Amended 5 13 Complaint with redactions is GRANTED as follows: (1) the Administrative Motion (dkt. 36) will 14 || be placed UNDER SEAL; (2) the Redacted Version of First Amended Complaint (dkt. 36-3) will 3 15 be docketed as the First Amended Complaint; (3) the Unredacted Version of First Amended 16 || Complaint (dkt. 36-4) will be docketed and placed UNDER SEAL, accessible only to the parties; 3 17 (4) Defendant Humboldt County’s Opposition (dkt. 37), which contains reference to a family law 18 case number which purportedly reveals identifying information about the non-party minor, will be 19 || placed UNDER SEAL; and (5) all further reference to the non-party minor shall be made using the 20 || initials G.N. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: January 29, 2020 23 Ml Z 24 95 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28