UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

MATTHEW GARY SHULTZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-918-CEM-LHP

DUSTIN MUELLER, SMITH PREDELUS and CITY OF ORLANDO,

Defendants

ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal or Redact References to Prior Detention. Doc. No. 3. On review, the motion fails to comply with the Court’s Local Rules because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(a) and does not comply with the requirements for a motion to seal pursuant to Local Rule 1.11. See Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). Moreover, although Plaintiff mentions “portions of the case record that reference a previously dismissed or sealed incident,” Plaintiff does not identify where in the record such information exists. Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion must comply with the Local Rules, identify the specific information in the record that Plaintiff wishes to be sealed, and provide legal authority demonstrating that sealing such information is appropriate under governing law. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 27, 2025.

[ inlay ie ayn Kica LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties