Opinion
No. CIV-11-0273 LAM/RHS.
July 26, 2011
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Seal Administrative Record (Doc. 18), filed June 15, 2011, in which Defendant asks the Court to seal the administrative record in this case to protect sensitive personal and health-related information. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has not responded to the motion and the time for doing so has passed, which constitutes consent to grant the motion. See D. N.M. LR-Civ. 7.1(b) ("The failure of a party to file and serve a response in opposition to a motion within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes consent to grant the motion."). The Court's docket reflects that, on the date it was filed, the motion was mailed to Plaintiff at her address of record. See Notice of Electronic Filing of Doc. 18. In addition, Defendant states that he also sent a letter to Plaintiff to determine whether or not she agreed to the motion, but Plaintiff had not responded to that letter as of July 19, 2011. See [ Doc. 19]. For these reasons, the Court finds that the motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED. The Court cautions Plaintiff that, even though she is proceeding pro se, she is still required to comply with all Court rules. See Ogden v. San Juan County, et al., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) ("[P]ro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.") (citation omitted). If Plaintiff's address has changed, she is required to notify the Court of her new address. See D. N.M. LR-Civ 83.6.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion to Seal Administrative Record (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.