K.S.J. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services

N.D. Mississippi

K.S.J. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services

District Court, N.D. Mississippi·Decided December 6, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-00465·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

K.S.J., A MINOR; NATALIE CUZDEY; AND GILBERT CUZDEY, JR.; INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FOSTER PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF THE MINOR CHILD, K.S.J. PLAINTIFFS

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:23-cv-465-MPM-JMV

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion [3] of Plaintiffs to replace some of the exhibits filed with the Complaint [1]. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED as modified below. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 5, 2023, with seven exhibits attached. Three exhibits contained information – the minor child’s name or date of birth – that was intended to be redacted but was not. The exhibits at issue are ECF 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7. Electronic filings that contain the name of an individual known to be a minor may include only the minor’s initials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3); see also Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Blackwell, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-56-GHD-RP, 2019 WL 1281239, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2019). Per Local Rule 79(b), the court may sua sponte order a document to be sealed, though the order “must include particularized findings demonstrating that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve those reasons.” L.U. Civ. R. 79(b). Although Plaintiff has requested that the exhibits at issue be “replaced” by the redacted versions attached to the instant motion, the undersigned finds the appropriate procedure to be ordering the originally filed exhibits sealed. Sealing is appropriate to protect the identity and interests of the minor child, as well as to comply with the Federal Rules. Sealing is also narrowly tailored to protect this interest as the redacted versions of these exhibits will be filed on the docket for public consumption. THERFORE IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s originally filed exhibits (ECF 1.3, 1.5, 1.7) are ordered to be sealed. The Clerk’s Office is also instructed to attach the redacted exhibits filed

with Plaintiffs’ motion [3] to Plaintiffs’ Complaint [1]. SO ORDERED, this, the 6th day of December, 2023. /s/ Jane M. Virden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

K.S.J., A MINOR; NATALIE CUZDEY; AND GILBERT CUZDEY, JR.; INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FOSTER PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF THE MINOR CHILD, K.S.J. PLAINTIFFS

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:23-cv-465-MPM-JMV

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion [3] of Plaintiffs to replace some of the exhibits filed with the Complaint [1]. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED as modified below. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 5, 2023, with seven exhibits attached. Three exhibits contained information – the minor child’s name or date of birth – that was intended to be redacted but was not. The exhibits at issue are ECF 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7. Electronic filings that contain the name of an individual known to be a minor may include only the minor’s initials. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3); see also Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Blackwell, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-56-GHD-RP, 2019 WL 1281239, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2019). Per Local Rule 79(b), the court may sua sponte order a document to be sealed, though the order “must include particularized findings demonstrating that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve those reasons.” L.U. Civ. R. 79(b). Although Plaintiff has requested that the exhibits at issue be “replaced” by the redacted versions attached to the instant motion, the undersigned finds the appropriate procedure to be ordering the originally filed exhibits sealed. Sealing is appropriate to protect the identity and interests of the minor child, as well as to comply with the Federal Rules. Sealing is also narrowly tailored to protect this interest as the redacted versions of these exhibits will be filed on the docket for public consumption. THERFORE IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s originally filed exhibits (ECF 1.3, 1.5, 1.7) are ordered to be sealed. The Clerk’s Office is also instructed to attach the redacted exhibits filed

with Plaintiffs’ motion [3] to Plaintiffs’ Complaint [1]. SO ORDERED, this, the 6th day of December, 2023. /s/ Jane M. Virden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

K.S.J. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services, (N.D. Miss. 2023).

Pincite

K.S.J. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (K.S.J. v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.