Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-01103_de54> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01103_de54 RegisterActionDate "2017-08-09" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01103_de54 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER denying 54 Motion for Leave to Restrict: The motion fails to comply with the requirements of D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 7.2 in several respects. Although Ms. Bantle identifies the documents she seeks to restrict access to, she offers only generalized, categorical, and conclusory assertions of the privacy interests involved and offers no evaluation of how such privacy interests weigh against the public interest in access. Local Rule 7.2(c)(2). She does not specifically identify a serious harm that would result from disclosure. Local Rule 7.2(c)(3). And she makes no showing as to why alternative means, such as redaction or stipulation, cannot suffice to protect any legitimate privacy interests. Local Rule 7.2(c)(4). Most significantly, she does not make any of the above-referenced showings on an exhibit-by-exhibit basis, as the analysis applicable to each exhibit in question may be distinct. See e.g. Weatherford, Intl. v. MacKechnie, D.C. Colo. Civ. Case No. 15-cv-01320-MSK-KMT at Docket #69. Accordingly, Ms. Bantle's motion is denied. However, the Court will maintain the filings in question under provisional restrictions for an additional 21 days, during which Ms. Bantle may file a new motion to restrict that comports with the requirements set forth above. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/9/17. Text Only Entry (msklc2, ) (Entered: 08/09/2017)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01103_de54 AdministrativeID "55" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01103_de54 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01103_de54 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01103_de53 @default.