As best I can tell, her appeal amounts to her shrieking because the magistrate judge ruled for her, but then didn't give her literally everything she had demanded.
The lower court ruled in its minute order "to file a copy of Attachment 3 to Docket Item No. 99 that redacts the address and any other personal identifiers of the plaintiff on the public docket." So... this begs the question, what's a "personal identifier"?
Local Rule 8 states "The responsibility for redacting personal identifiers as required by the federal rules of procedure rests solely with counsel or with the pro se party." So the local rules simply defer to the federal rules.
And the FRCP 5.2. Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court specifies that "an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account number" have to be redacted (to the last 4 digits, birth year, or initials).
As for "(a) county of residence, (b) place of employment, place of graduate school, (c) make, model and year of vehicles"? Those aren't covered under either the federal rules, or the local court's rules, or even under the magistrate judge's ruling ordering the redaction of your address and "other personal identifiers". GET FUCKED, MELINDA. And don't think I missed that very clever attempt to stick "any other identifying information such as social security numbers, etc;" into her filings - which actually would have to be redacted, if the exhibit had contained any such identifying information in the first place... WHICH IT DID NOT.
In fact, LITERALLY NONE of the information that was contained in the exhibit was required to be redacted under FRCP 5.2. The magistrate judge threw Melinda a bone by even ruling that her address needed to be redacted, as it does not fall under the specific requirements for redaction of court documents under FRCP 5.2.
