Civics: Careful with Those Redactions
In Magistrate Judge Lara Eshkenazi’s opinion Monday in Mercante v. Tarzia (E.D.N.Y.), defendant’s counsel (Coleman) filed an exhibit containing “wire transfer instructions to [plaintiff’s counsel’s] firm’s bank account”:
Exhibit F purports to be redacted, and a white box with the word “REDACTED” covers the bank account information. The exhibit cover page also states that the bank account information is redacted. However, Mr. Coleman failed to adequately redact and remove the sensitive financial information, as the text is accessible by copying and pasting, or by clicking and moving the white box covering the text.
The court concluded that this didn’t qualify as contempt of court (based on of its failure to comply with a protective order, “which prohibits materials marked ‘confidential’ from being filed on the public docket”):
While the mistake reflects some carelessness on Defense counsel’s part, his initial attempt to redact the information and immediate acceptance of responsibility for his error leads this Court to conclude that Plaintiff has not carried her burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that Defense counsel was not reasonably diligent in attempting to comply with the Protective Order.
But the court granted sanctions against defense counsel, in the form of having to pay expenses for “data breach mitigation” services:
