Scheffler v. New Hope, City of

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota November 16, 2018

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Troy K. Scheffler, Case No. 18-cv-1690 (SRN/LIB)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

City of New Hope, et al.,

Defendants.

Troy K. Scheffler, 26359 Shandy Trail, Merrifield, Minnesota 56465, pro se.

Ryan M. Zipf, League of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55103, and Kathryn Iverson Landrum, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office,
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, for Defendants.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff Troy K. Scheffler’s September 12, 2018 objection
[Doc. No. 62] and October 5, 2018 objection [Doc. No. 71] (“Objections”) to Magistrate
Judge Brisbois’s August 31, 2018 Order [Doc. No. 42] and September 17, 2018 Order
[Doc. No. 63] (“Orders”). In the Orders, Magistrate Judge Brisbois directed Plaintiff to
refile a redacted version of his Amended Complaint, as it contained the personal home
address of several District Court Judges for the State of Minnesota. For the reasons set
forth below, this Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objections, adopts Magistrate Judge
Brisbois’s Orders in their entirety, and directs Plaintiff to file a redacted version of his
Amended Complaint.
I. Background
On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. [Doc. No. 1]. Then, on August 20,
2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 41]. In his Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff listed the personal home address of several District Court Judges for the State of
Minnesota. (Amended Compl. at ¶¶ 6–10.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Brisbois
directed the Clerk of Court’s Office to maintain the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint under
seal. (Aug. 31, 2018 Order at 1.) Moreover, Magistrate Judge Brisbois also directed
Plaintiff to file a redacted version of his Amended Complaint omitting the various

judges’ addresses. (Id.)
On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s August
31, 2018 Order. Plaintiff argued that: (1) the Court has no authority to seal his Amended
Complaint, (2) disclosure of the judges’ addresses is not a “needless safety threat,” and
(3) the judges’ addresses are unverified. (Pl.’s Obj. of Sept. 12, 2018.) Magistrate Judge

Brisbois responded by reaffirming his August 31, 2018 Order. (Sept. 17, 2018 Order at
3–4.)
Then, on October 5, 2018, Plaintiff again objected to Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s
September 18, 2018 order reasserting all of his prior arguments. (Pl.’s Obj. of Oct. 5,
2018.) This Court fully with the magistrate judge’s Orders, overrules Plaintiff’s

Objections, and directs Plaintiff to file a redacted version of his Amended Complaint.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge’s order on
nondispositive pretrial matters, such as leave to amend a complaint, is extremely
deferential. Roble v. Celestica Corp.,

627 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1014

 (D. Minn. 2007); see 
also Damon v. Groteboer, Civ. No. 10–92,

2013 WL 53833

, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Jan. 3, 

2013). The Court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the 
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(A); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a).                                      
    B.   Analysis                                                        
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 requires parties to redact a limited amount of 

personal information from public filings. The Rule is intended “to protect privacy and 
security concerns” of individuals. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 Advisory Comm. Note (2007). Both 
at the state and federal level, judges’ home addresses are protected. See

Minn. Stat. §§ 13.37

, subd. 1(a); 13.43, subd. 4; Minnesota Rules of Public Access to Records of the 
Judicial Branch, Rule 5, subds. 1, 5; Lurie v. Dep’t of Army,

970 F. Supp. 19, 35

 (D.D.C. 

1997) (holding “personal addresses” to be private under the Freedom of Information 
Act).1                                                                    
    Moreover, this Court also has “broad discretion” to address matters of “security,” 
particularly when such security measures cause no prejudice to a plaintiff. Wainwright v. 
Lockhart,

80 F.3d 1226

, 1232 (8th Cir. 1996). The United States Supreme Court has 

recognized the significant interest public employees have in the privacy of their home 


1 The Electronic Case Filing Procedures Guide in this District provides the same 
protection for personal identifiers as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. 
See District of Minnesota Electronic Case Filing Procedures Guide Section III.B.  
addresses. U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.,

510 U.S. 487, 500

 (1994). 
Judges, in particular, have a critical need to maintain their privacy because of the possible 
threat posed by dissatisfied litigants, including criminal defendants. See Bigwood v. U.S. 

Agency for Int'l Dev.,

484 F. Supp. 2d 68, 77

 (D.D.C. 2007).              
    A court may order the redaction of information upon a showing of good cause. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(e)(1). Courts have found good cause exists to redact the home 
addresses of government employees because of safety concerns. See, e.g., Macias v. 
Cleaver, No. 1:13-cv-1819 (BAM),

2016 WL 3549257

, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2016); 

Reaves v. Jewell,

2014 WL 6698717

, at *2 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2014); Jones v. Corr. Corp. 
of Am.,

2011 WL 6217415

, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 14, 2011). Although there is a common 
law right of access to judicial records by the public, IDT Corp. v. eBay,

709 F.3d 1220, 1222

 (8th Cir. 2013), “[t]his right of access is not absolute, [and] requires a weighing of 
competing interests,” Feinwachs v. Minn. Hosp. Ass’n, No. 11-cv-8 (JRT/SER),

2018 WL 882808

, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2018).                                
    In this case, the personal home addresses of the judges at issue are in no way 
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, so there is no public interest in access to such addresses. 
Redacting the personal home addresses of the defendant judges guards against potential 
safety concerns and unsolicited contact by strangers to the present case.  

    Magistrate Judge Brisbois correctly concluded any privacy interest of the at issue 
judges regarding their personal home addresses outweighs the public right to those 
addresses. (Sept. 17, 2018 Order at 3–4.) Accordingly, this Court overrules Plaintiff’s 
Objections, adopts the Orders in their entirety, and directs Plaintiff to file a redacted 
version of his Amended Complaint.                                         
III.  Conclusion                                                          
    Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                      
    1.  Plaintiff Scheffler’s Objections [Doc. No. 62 & 71] are OVERRULED; 

    2.  Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s Orders [Doc. No. 42 & 63] are ADOPTED in their 
      entirety; and                                                      
    3.  Plaintiff Scheffler is directed to file a redacted version of his Amended 
      Complaint.                                                         

Dated: November 16, 2018           s/ Susan Richard Nelson                
                                  SUSAN RICHARD NELSON                   
                                  United States District Judge