Thoris L. Burt v. Cogent Communications, Inc.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
THORIS L. BURT,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 6:25-cv-01644-AGM-LHP
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendant,
ORDER (And Direction to Clerk)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Corrected Exhibits A and D and Request to Restrict Public Access to Previously Filed Unredacted Versions Pursuant to FRCP 5.2. Doc. No. 19. By the present motion, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, Plaintiff seeks to redact his date of birth and driver’s license number from two exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. No. 17). The motion does not state whether Plaintiff conferred with opposing counsel, as required by Local Rule 3.01(g), however the Court does not require the benefit of a response to rule on the motion. On review, the motion (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED in part, to the extent that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to seal Exhibits A and D (Doc. Nos. 17-2, 17-5) to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Doc. No. 17). The Clerk of Court is FURTHER DIRECTED to file separately on the public docket the redacted versions of Exhibits A and D (Doc. Nos. 19-1, 19-2) which are attached to the present motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. See also Williams v. Delray Auto Mall, Inc., 289 F.R.D. 697 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (Redaction of a driver’s license number “is not a requirement, and the decision is left with the filer to make an informed decision as to whether to include or redact the information.”). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is advised that future filings that fail to comply in full with all applicable Local Rules may be stricken or summarily denied without further notice. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 836 (11th Cir. 1989) (A pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 3, 2026.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thoris L. Burt v. Cogent Communications, Inc. (Thoris L. Burt v. Cogent Communications, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.