Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257 RegisterActionDate "2018-04-03" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Restrict Filing 218 , and the applicable rules and case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Motion 218 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. First, Plaintiff seeks restriction from public access to three documents (which Defendants have apparently designated as containing "confidential information") but nonetheless filed all exhibits as restricted in order to avoid "confusion." The Court finds no confusion will be caused by filing some documents restricted and others as unrestricted. Accordingly, the other exhibits shall be unrestricted. Second, the Court has reviewed the three documents (collectively, "Documents") at issue and finds restriction is appropriate as to Exhibits 1 and 17 but not as to Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 consists of selected pages from Thomas Rogers' deposition transcript, two of which are marked as "confidential." The Court's review of these two pages shows such limited information fails to disclose "competitively sensitive information" which "could result in significant injury to one or more of the Parties' business or privacy interests," as cursorily alleged in the Motion. Accordingly, Exhibit 8 shall also be unrestricted. Third, Plaintiff seeks restriction of her Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 220 and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 221 as these documents include some text from the Documents. The Court's review of these filings shows the very limited disclosures from Exhibits 1 and 17 are insufficient to support restriction, e.g., that the disclosures would not result in any defined and serious injury to Defendants. Finally, the fact that such Documents have been designated as "confidential" pursuant to a protective order does not change the analysis, or result in any automatic restriction. See JetAway Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs of Cty. of Montrose, Colo., 754 F.3d 824, 826 (10th Cir. 2014) (rejecting movant's explanation that documents were filed under seal in district court pursuant to a protective order as sufficient justification for sealing documents on appeal). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Exhibits 1 and 17 [220-1] and [220-17] shall REMAIN restricted at a Level 1 restriction; and (2) the following documents shall be UNRESTRICTED - 221 , 220 , [220-2] through [220-16], and [220-18] through [220-54]. SO ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 4/3/2018. (Text Only Entry ) (rmsec ) (Entered: 04/03/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257 AdministrativeID "258" @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de217 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de219 @default.
- cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de257 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:16-cv-01917_de220 @default.