Paden El Bey: Tiffany v. Cox Communication

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6] PADEN EL BEY: TIFFANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00391-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff ORDER 8] v. 9} COX COMMUNICATION, et al.

10 Defendants.

11 Plaintiff filed an exhibit to her application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is a “billing error notice,” on the docket. Docket No. 4. “Local Rule 7—2 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice permits the filing of a motion, a response, and a reply. A document not allowed by Local Rule 7— 14} 2, or otherwise permitted by order of this Court, is a fugitive document and must be stricken from 15] the record.” Reiger v. Nivens, No. 3:12-cv-00218-MMD-VPC, 2014 WL 537613, *3 (D. Nev. 16] 2014). Plaintiff's filing is not a motion, response, or reply. The filing also contains unredacted 17} financial account information and, therefore, fails to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule 18] of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(4). See Docket No. 4 at 4, 8, 12-13, 17-20.

19 Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to strike the filing at Docket No. 4 and 20] return the documents to Plaintiff forthwith.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: March 22, 2023 23 Lk 2 7 Nancy J. pe 24 United es, Magistrate Judge