Nehemiah v. Director of the Office of Personnel Management

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
QUITO I. NEHEMIAH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:24-cv-00929-MLG-LF
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE EXCUSED FROM FILING REDACTED
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant Director of the Office of Personnel
Management (“OPM”)’s motion to be excused from filing a redacted administrative record (Doc.
81). On October 14, 2025, the Court ordered OPM to refile the administrative record of
proceedings before the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) by October 28, 2028. See
Doc. 78. OPM was required to both (1) file the record unredacted but under seal, and (2) either
file the record publicly with personal identifiable information redacted or file a motion to be
relieved from filing a redacted copy because personal identifiable information permeates the
record. Id. at 1.
On October 28, 2025, OPM timely filed both an unredacted copy of the record under seal,
see Doc. 80, and a motion to be excused from filing a redacted copy of the record, see Doc. 81.
OPM asserts that the record “is replete with personally identifying information, information from
Plaintiff’s personnel files, information regarding Plaintiff’s financial and medical history, and
other sensitive, non-public information” that “would be unduly burdensome” to redact “from the
1,100-page” record. Id. at 1. OPM additionally argues that a redacted public record “is of
limited public interest,” because “it does not only contain those materials relied upon by the
Case 1:24-cv-00929-MLG-LF Document 86 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

2
parties for their merits arguments, but all other parts of the records from administrative
proceedings not referenced by the parties.” Id. at 2.
OPM stated that it sought plaintiff Quito Nehemiah’s position on the motion but was
unable to contact him. Id. at 1. A “United States Memorandum in Support of Motion to Hold
the Office of Personnel Management for Show Cause Order” from Mr. Nehemiah was filed with
the Court on November 6, 2025. See Doc. 83. Mr. Nehemiah does not raise any arguments in
that filing either for or against OPM’s motion to be excused from filing the redacted record. See
id.; see also D.N.M.LR-Civ 7.1(b) (“The failure of a party to file and serve a response in
opposition to a motion within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes consent to grant the
motion.”). Rather, the filing asks the court to “impose civil contempt sanctions” on OPM in the
amount of $10,000 per day for violating the Court’s October 14, 2025, order to refile the record.
Doc. 83 at 2. But there is no evidence that OPM has violated the Court’s order. Mr. Nehemiah
acknowledges that the Court ordered OPM “to file in the court’s docket the administrative record
of proceedings before the MSPB (1) un-redacted but under seal, and [(2)] publicly but with
personal identifiable information redacted; or, alternatively, file a motion to be relieved from
filing a redacted copy because identifiable information permeates the record.” Id. at 2. As
explained above, OPM met the first requirement by filing the unredacted record under seal. See
Doc. 80. OPM met the second requirement by filing the present motion to be relieved from
filing a redacted copy of the record. See Doc. 81. Mr. Nehemiah acknowledges that OPM had
“14 days to comply with the order,” Doc. 83 at 1, and OPM filed both the unredacted record and
motion within that fourteen-day timeframe, see Doc. 80 (filed October 28, 2025); Doc. 81 (filed
October 28, 2025).
Case 1:24-cv-00929-MLG-LF Document 86 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Because Mr. Nehemiah did not oppose the motion, and because OPM argues that Mr.
Nehemiah’s personally identifiable information permeates the administrative record, the Court
finds good cause to GRANT the motion. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 5.2(d) (“The court may order that a
filing be made under seal without redaction.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Laura Fashing
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00929-MLG-LF Document 86 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3