Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167 RegisterActionDate "2017-11-29" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Restrict 162 . Plaintiff seeks to restrict Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Her Motion to Amend Complaint 164 and the exhibits attached thereto. Plaintiff, however, fails to identify why the interest in restricting the documents outweighs the presumption of public access, or why there is no practicable alternative, such as redaction, as required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c). Moreover, Plaintiff extensively references responses filed by Defendants in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [160, 161]--neither of which were filed under restriction. Plaintiff also has attached exhibits to her Reply that have been publicly filed by Defendants, thus the need or purpose in restricting these documents is unclear. [Compare 160-21, with 164-7] For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion 162 is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court, however, is instructed to maintain Plaintiff's Reply 164 under Restriction Level 1, pending resolution of this matter and a renewed motion for leave to restrict by Plaintiff. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 11/29/2017. Text Only Entry (stvlc2, ) (Entered: 11/29/2017)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167 AdministrativeID "168" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167 OntologyLabel dismiss_without_prejudice @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de161 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de167 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de163 @default.