United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division
Matthew Krumtum, Pro Se Plaintiff.
OPINION AND ORDER
P. Jones United States District Judge
civil action, the plaintiff has moved to strike certain
documents from the record and levy sanctions against some of
the defendants and their attorneys. For the following
reasons, I will direct the clerk to place some of the
documents under seal, and will further order redacted
versions of those documents to be filed, but I will decline
to levy any sanctions.
to the facts alleged, the plaintiff, a lawyer, was married to
defendant Maria Kathryn Maybury, also a lawyer. The couple
experienced marital problems and separated. On May 15, 2013,
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Adult Division,
for the City of Bristol, Virginia (“J&DR
Court”), entered a Protective Order against the
plaintiff. That order mandated that the plaintiff was to have
no contact of any kind with Maybury or the couple’s
four children. The Protective Order further provided that it
would remain in effect until May 15, 2015.
February 28, 2014, the plaintiff delivered a 25-page letter
to Maybury’s divorce attorney, defendant Faith
Esposito. It stated that it was “a personal letter from
me to my wife” and requested that it not be used
“in litigation.” The letter contains numerous
references to the couple’s children, and appears to
include photographs of those children.
defendant Steven B. Crawford, a sergeant with the Bristol
Police Department, filed a criminal complaint against the
plaintiff and presented it to defendant James Weaver, a
Virginia magistrate, who issued an arrest warrant upon his
finding that there was probable cause to believe that the
plaintiff’s delivery of the letter constituted a
violation of the Protective Order. The plaintiff was arrested
on the night of February 28. However, the charge was later
dismissed by the J&DR Court.
plaintiff thereafter filed this lawsuit in Virginia state
court against the Bristol police chief John Austin, Sgt.
Crawford, attorney Esposito, two state prosecutors, the
magistrate, the J&DR judge who dismissed the charge,
Maybury, and three John Does. He claimed violations of his
federal constitutional rights as well as asserting state law
intentional torts. The case was then removed to this court by
plaintiff filed the present Motion to Strike and for
Sanctions on the ground that some of the defendants’
pleadings include attachments that contain personal
information about him and his children. The plaintiff argues
that these attachments should have been redacted to exclude
his social security number, date of birth, children’s
names, and children’s dates of birth. That information
is contained in the following documents that have been filed
with this court:
• The Notice of Removal filed on behalf of defendants
Crawford and Austin and defendant Austin’s Memorandum
in Support of Motion to Dismiss, both filed in this court.
(ECF Nos. 1, 16.) Both contain attached Protective Orders
with the unredacted names and birthdates of the
• The letter from the plaintiff to Maybury that was
attached to defendant Austin’s Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16-6) and defendant Weaver’s
Response to Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (ECF No. 28), both
filed in this court. The letter contains the unredacted names
of the plaintiff’s children; and
• The entire record from state court (ECF No. 22), filed
upon the removal of the case in accord with 28 U.S.C. §
1447(b). This record contains documents that have the
plaintiff’s social security number and date of birth
and his children’s names and dates of birth.
Federal Rules of Civil ...