574 B.R. 829
Bankr. N.D. Ind.2017Background
- U.S. Bank filed a motion to restrict public electronic access to a prior court filing and to authorize filing a redacted replacement; the motion used a standardized form heavy with acronyms and vague labels (e.g., “Designated Filing,” “Replacement Filing”).
- The motion failed to identify clearly which specific prior filing was the subject of the restriction or where it was located in the docket.
- The motion did not include a proposed form of order as required by local rule.
- The motion repeatedly referred to U.S. Bank as the filer of the original “Designated Filing,” but the docket shows U.S. Bank had not previously filed that challenged document; it had been filed by a different creditor.
- The court concluded the motion lacked the required particularity (who, what, when, where, why) and did not establish that U.S. Bank had standing to seek redaction of another creditor’s filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/particularity of the motion | Motion sought restriction and replacement filing; form asserted grounds generally | Court (defendant in effect) argued motion was vague, used unclear acronyms, omitted identification of the specific filing | Denied for failure to plead with required particularity (who/what/when/where/why) |
| Standing to redact another creditor's filing | U.S. Bank argued it had standing to redact filings (primarily its own filings) | Court noted no allegation or proof U.S. Bank authored or succeeded to the interests in the targeted filing | Denied for lack of demonstrated standing to redact a different creditor’s filing |
| Compliance with local/formal requirements (proposed order, clarity) | Movant requested relief in form language referencing undefined terms | Court emphasized local rules require proposed orders and rulings must be self-contained and specific | Denied; court refused to grant ambiguous relief and required compliance with rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. F.E.R.C., 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (criticizes use of obscure, case-specific acronyms that hinder comprehension)
- U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2003) (discusses pleading particularity and the need for clear factual detail)
- Reytblatt v. Denton, 812 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir. 1987) (final judgments and orders must be complete and self-contained)