Colvin v. White

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 4 — DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 5 — 6 PARNELL COLVIN, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02109-RFB-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket Nos. 18, 19] 9 TOMMY WHITE, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions to seal and to strike. Docket Nos. 18, 12 19. Plaintiffs did not file a response. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See 13 Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to seal (Docket No. 18) 14 is GRANTED and the motion to strike (Docket No. 19) is DENIED. The Clerk’s Office is 15 INSTRUCTED to seal Docket No. 16. 16 I. MOTION TO SEAL 17 Parties are prohibited from filing personal identifying information on the public docket. 18 E.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Parties must instead redact such information from their filings. E.g., 19 Local Rule IC 6-1(c) (“The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with 20 attorneys and the parties”). As Defendants correctly note, Plaintiffs filed a document (Docket No. 21 16) that includes several personal identifiers, including full social security number, birth date, and 22 address. Accordingly, the motion to seal will be granted. 23 The Court also CAUTIONS Plaintiffs that they are required to comply with the redaction 24 rules, and all other rules governing this case. Failure to do so in the future may result in the 25 imposition of sanctions. 26 II. MOTION TO STRIKE 27 District courts have authority to strike an improper filing under their inherent power to 28 control the docket. E.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010); 1| Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110-11 (D. Nev. 1988). “Striking material under the Court’s inherent power is wholly discretionary.” Fed. Nat’! Mortg. Assoc. v. Willis, 2016 WL 11247554 , at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2016). In deciding whether to exercise that discretion, courts 4] consider whether striking the filing would “further the overall resolution of the action,” and 5 whether the filer has a history of excessive and repetitive filing that have complicated 6] proceedings. Jones v. Skolnik, 2015 WL 685228 , at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 18, 2015). Courts have 7|| expressed reluctance at striking filings without some showing of prejudice to the moving party. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Nev. Dept. Of Corr., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 174002, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 20, 9] 2017)). “Especially with respect to filings of pro se litigants who may be unfamiliar with the 10] technical aspects of the applicable rules, it is not a useful expenditure of resources to entertain 11] motions to strike without any showing of prejudice.” Zeddies v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2021 WL 2583545 , at *2 (D. Nev. June 23, 2021). 13 The motion to strike makes no showing of prejudice arising from the subject document not 14] being stricken from the docket.’ Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to strike. 1. CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons discussed more fully above, the motion to seal (Docket No. 18) is GRANTED and the motion to strike (Docket No. 19) is DENIED. The Clerk’s Office is 18] INSTRUCTED to seal Docket No. 16. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 19, 2022 21 7 x A. Nancy J~Koppe 22 United States Magistrate Judge — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — 27 ' As discussed above, the subject document contains personal identifying information, but the Court has addressed any prejudice stemming from the filing of such information by sealing the 28] document.