Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02172-CMA-KLM
11-30-2012
BONNER ROBINETTE, and SHIRLEY ROBINETTE, Plaintiffs, v. SYDNEY "DUKE" SCHIRARD, Sheriff, La Plata County Colorado, in his individual and professional capacities, BOBBIE FENDER, in his individual and professional capacities, AMBER FENDER, in her individual and professional capacities, STEVE SCHMIDT, in his individual and professional capacities, MELVIN SCHAFF, in his individual and professional capacities, CHARLES HAMBY, in his individual and professional capacities, and SEAN SMITH, in his individual and professional capacities, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' first Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [Docket No. 71; Filed October 30, 2012]; on Plaintiffs' second Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [Docket No. 72; Filed October 31, 2012]; on Plaintiffs' first Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [Docket No. 73; Filed October 30, 2012]; on Plaintiffs' second Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [Docket No. 74; Filed October 31, 2012]; and on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [Docket No. 78; Filed November 28, 2012].
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs have attached copies of some of Plaintiff Bonner Robinette's medical records to their second Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [#72]. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, the Court finds that the presumption of public access to Court files is outweighed by Plaintiffs' interest in privacy in their medical records and that a less restrictive alternative is not practicable. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the following document UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL 1: pages 15-22 of Plaintiffs' second Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [#72].
Level 1, the least restrictive, limits access to the documents to the parties and the Court. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
In addition, upon review of Plaintiffs' first Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [#71] and second Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [#72], the Court finds that the second Motion appears to be an amended version of the first Motion. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' first Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [#71] is DENIED as moot. An order will issue in due course regarding Plaintiffs' second Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [#72].
Similarly, upon review of Plaintiffs' first Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [#73] and second Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [#74], the Court finds that the second Motion appears to be an amended version of the first Motion. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' first Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [#73] is DENIED as moot. An order will issue in due course regarding Plaintiffs' second Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [#74].
Finally,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [#78] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' second Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [#74] is hereby amended to the extent requested by Plaintiffs in this motion. As stated, an order will issue in due course regarding Plaintiffs' second Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances [#74].