In re Woebbeking
ON MOTION TO RESTRICT ACCESS
At Fort Wayne, Indiana, on September 18, 2017.
The purpose of any request for relief, be it a complaint, a motion, or an application, is to clearly and concisely inform the reader what it is the filer wants and why they should get it. In the case of a complaint, that means “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ and “a demand for the relief sought,” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 8(a)(2), (3); while' a motion or application is to set forth thе relief or order sought and the grounds therefor with particularity.
On the blank day of blank, so and so filed a motion to_, which contained personal identifying information that, pursuant to _, should be restricted from public access. The court should authorize the filing of an amended or redaсted motion, redacting only the personal identifying information, and then restrict public access to the original filing.
Sandwich that kind of information between an appropriate introduction and a prayer or statement of the relief sought and you have quickly and efficiently told the reader what it is the court is bеing asked to do and why.
Sadly, that is not what the court usually sees. For some reason, those who regularly file this sort of thing have chosen to create a form thаt substitutes complexity for simplicity and confusion for clarity. This form has been circulated among and adopted by a number of institutional filers and them counsel so that the court sees it repeatedly, filed on behalf of a variety of creditors, from a variety of law firms.
Presently before the court is a motion to rеstrict access. Rather than clearly and concisely setting out what the movant wants and why, the motion is larded with so much irrelevant information that it takes six pаges to say what could be better said in as many lines. Furthermore, the motion is also a study in how unhelpful acronyms, initialisms, or other alternate terms for something cаn be. Much like the wizards and witches in J. K. Rawlings’ Harry Potter series, where Lord Voldemort is “He who must not be named,” rather than stating what is actually being talked about, the motiоn creates and then uses terms like “PH”; “Designated Filing”; “Replacement Filing”; “GLBA” and “OCC”. Such terms do little to enhance the reader’s comprehension. See, Delаware Riverkeeper Network v. F.E.R.C.,
enter an order: (i) directing the Clerk of the Court to permanently restrict remote electronic access to the Designated Filing; (ii) authorize Movant to file the Replacement Filing, and (iii) granting suсh other and further relief as the court deems appropriate.
Lost in all of the obtuse verbiage is a single clear statement of just what the offending filing is оr where it may be found. That critical information must be pieced together from statements made in two different paragraphs where the reader is first told that some kind of motion for relief was filed and then, two paragraphs later, when. The problems created by this style of pleading have then been comрounded by movant’s failure to tender a proposed form of order with the motion, see, N.D. Ind. L.B.R. B-9013-1(c), forcing the court to have (the opportunity) to create something appropriate.
The court has previously commented upon, lamented, and criticized this type of unhelpful pleading, see e.g., Matter of Bicker,
Movant’s Motion is Granted. Movant is authorized to file the Replacement Filing and the Clerk of the Court shall restrict remote рublic access to the Designated Filing.
Such an order would be as useless as the motion’s prayer. No one, including the clerk, would be able to determine from the text of this decision and order what the “Designated Filing” might be. See, Reytblatt v. Denton,
Much as the court might like to follow its inclination and give the movant what it asked for, it cannot. There is an even deeper problem with the motion, a problem directly tied to the mindless use of forms and alternative terms. The motion has been filed by U.S. Bank, who is promptly identified and thereafter referred to as “Movant.” The motion specifically alleges that “Movant originally filed the Designated Filing on .... ” The problem is that U.S. Bank did not file anything in this case on thаt or any other date; the present motion is the first thing U.S. Bank has ever filed. The “Designated Filing,” to use movant’s words, was made by an entirely different creditor and nothing in the present motion tries to tie that creditor to U.S. Bank or suggests how U.S. Bank may have succeeded to its interests or why U.S. Bank should be allowed to redact that crеditor’s filings.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Particularity is not the same thing as verbosity. It rеquires only that the movant provide the factual details—the who, what, when, where, and why—of the claim being asserted. See, U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corр.,
. There are those who can be more succinct, and do a much better job of observing bojh the letter and the spirit of the rules of plead-tag, as demonstrated by a similar motion filed in this case by Codilis & Associates.
. In light of the fact that the motion spends over two pages discussing movant's standing to seеk redaction, the lack of any alleged link is curious. But that discussion is limited to the proposition that U.S. Bank has standing to redact its own filings (a proposition that does not seem to be subject to any real dispute): it does not address why it might have standing to redact someone else's.