Summary
In Huddleson v. City of Pueblo, 270 F.R.D. 635 (D. Colo. 2010), I addressed the competing considerations implicated in a motion to seal court documents.
Summary of this case from SBM Site Services, LLC v. GarrettOpinion
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01589-PAB-BNB.
September 28, 2010
ORDER
This matter arises on defendant's Motion to Amend Defendant's Answer [Doc. # 30, filed 9/15/2010] (the "Motion"). Although the initial indication was that the plaintiff opposed the Motion, subsequently the parties filed a Stipulation [Doc. # 33, filed 9/28/2010] indicating that "the Plaintiff no longer opposes the Motion to Amend, [and] the parties do not believe it necessary that the hearing scheduled for September 30, 2010, take place. . . ."
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The Motion [Doc. # 30] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing the Amended Answer and Jury Demand [Doc. # 30-1]; and
(2) The hearing set for September 30, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., is VACATED.
Dated September 28, 2010.