Taitz v. Astrue, Slip Copy (2011)
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1
2011 WL 3039167Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court,District of Columbia.Orly TAITZ, Plaintiff, v.Michael ASTRUE, Commissioner of theSocial Security Administration, Defendant.Civil Action No. 11–402 (RCL). | Jul y 25, 2011.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Orly Taitz, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, pro se.Patrick George Nemeroff, U.S. Department of Justice,Washington, DC, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.
Defendant's motion to strike  plaintiff's oppositionto defendant's summary judgment motion, and attachedexhibits, was promptly granted  due to plaintiff's failureto comply withFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(1),which requires that only the last four digits of a social securitynumber are to be filed with the Court.The Court will not tolerate plaintiff's repeated violations of this Rule.On June 2, 2011, the Court entered an Order  directingplaintiff to re-file her Complaint, First Amended Complaint,and all attached exhibits with properly redacted socialsecurity numbers. Defendant's motion to strike  recitedthe requiredRule 5.2provisions.Rule 5.2(a)(1)provides that,
in a filing with the court that contains an individual's socialsecurity number, a party may include only “the last four digitsof the social-security number.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a)(1). OnJune 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a redacted Complaint  andAmended Complaint , deleting all but the last four digitsof the social security numbers contained therein.On July 15, 2011, plaintiff—again in direct violation of Rule5.2—filed her opposition to defendant's summary judgmentmotion, in which she failed to delete all but the last fourdigits of the social security numbers contained therein. TheCourt's Order  striking plaintiffs opposition did notimpose sanctions against plaintiff because defendant hadnot sought them. Plaintiff should be aware, however, thatrepeated violations of the Rules are in fact sanctionable, even
Moreover, wasting the Court's time with nonsenseis not the way for plaintiff to have any hope of prevailing inthis case.On July 21, 2011, plaintiff orally notified the Court's law clerk that she had realized her error and had sent a redacted versionof her opposition to defendant's summary judgment motionto the Clerk's Office. Based on this representation, the Courtentered a
Order  giving plaintiff 14 days tofile a redacted version of her opposition. Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration  of the Court's July 21, 2011 Order isDENIED.Plaintiff claims that she sent to the Clerk's Office a redactedversion of her opposition, which—as the Court noted in itsJuly 21, 2011 Order—the Clerk's Office could not locate atthat time.
In the explanation attached to her motion forreconsideration, plaintiff states the following:I printed out a new copy, redacted the last four digits of theSSN in question and paid for fed ex again and shipped theredacted copy with the explanation to the clerk of the court.Plaintiff's statement is an admission that even her redactedversion was submitted in violation of Rule 5.2. Plaintiff admits that she did the
of what the Rule requires—she deleted the last four digits of the social securitynumbers contained in her proposed redacted opposition.The Rule requires that she delete
but the last four digitsof a social security number.
After making the somewhat hysterical claim in hermotion for reconsideration that there may be “an employeein this court, who is intentionally sabotaging” her, plaintiff engaged the Court's Courtroom Deputy Clerk in a lengthy,accusatory conversation. On July 22, 2011, she sent theCourtroom Deputy Clerk her proposed redacted oppositionvia email. The Court has reviewed that document, and itwill not be filed. In the document, plaintiff deletes the lastfour digits of the social security numbers contained therein—again, the
of whatRule 5.2requires.On this day, the Court received by mail another version of plaintiff's opposition. It will not be filed. Yet again, all of thedocument's redactions are improper.
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 28-3 Filed 05/17/12 Page 2 of 3