Ryskamp v. Looney et al

Filing 229

MINUTE ORDER granting 212 First Motion for Order to Restrict; granting 217 Second Motion for Order to Restrict; granting 226 Motion to Strike, STRICKEN 219 Restricted Document - Level 1, and STRICKEN 222 Response to Motion, Plaintiff may re-file his Response to Defendants Susan L. Ciciora and John S. Horejsis Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8(a), 9(b), and 12 (b)(6) 198 no later than January 23, 2012. by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/18/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00842-WJM-KLM
DENIS RYSKAMP, Derivatively on Behalf of BOULDER GROWTH & INCOME FUND,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOEL W. LOONEY,
DEAN L. JACOBSON,
RICHARD I. BARR,
SUSAN L. COCIORA,
JOHN S. HOREJSI,
STEWART R. HOREJSI,
STEPHEN C. MILLER,
CARL D. JOHNS,
THE ERNEST HOREJSI TRUST NO. 1B,
BOULDER INVESTMENT ADVISERS, LLC,
STEWART INVESTMENT ADVISERS, and
FUND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants,
and
BOULDER GROWTH & INCOME FUND, INC.,
Nominal Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Restrict Access
to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Nominal Defendant Boulder Growth and Income Fund,
Inc. and the Review Committee’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23.1 and
12(b)(6) and All Supporting Documents [Docket No. 212; Filed January 11, 2012] (the
“First Motion to Restrict”); Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Restrict Access to Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Susan L. Ciciora’s and John S. Horejsi’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to F.R.C.P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 217; Filed January 11, 2012] (the “Second
-1-

Motion to Restrict”); and the Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants
Susan Ciciora’s and John S. Horejsi’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6) Without Prejudice and
With Leave to Re-file [Docket No. 226; Filed January 17, 2012] (the “Motion to Strike”),
filed by Plaintiff and Defendants Susan L. Ciciora and John S. Horejsi.
In accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, the First Motion to Restrict and the
Second Motion to Restrict were publicly posted to allow for any objections to the sealing
of the documents. No timely objections were filed. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, the
Court finds that the presumption of public access to Court files is outweighed by the parties’
interest in privacy, and the parties have shown that a less restrictive alternative is not
practicable. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion to Restrict [#212] and the Second
Motion to Restrict [#217] are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the
following documents UNDER SEAL at a LEVEL 1 access restriction:1
(1) Opposition to Nominal Defendant Boulder Growth and Income Fund, Inc.
and the Review Committee’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23.1
and 12(b)(6) [#214];2 and
(2) Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants Susan L. Ciciora’s and John S.
Horejsi’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6)
[#219].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [#226] is GRANTED. Both the
restricted and public docket entries for Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint [#219, #222] are STRICKEN. The restricted
docket entry [#219] shall remain under seal at a Level 1 access restriction. Plaintiff may
re-file his Response to Defendants Susan L. Ciciora and John S. Horejsi’s Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) [#198] no later than January 23,
2012.
Dated: January 18, 2012

1

Level 1, the least restrictive, limits access to the documents to the parties and the Court.
See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
2

Plaintiff also requests that “all supporting documents” be placed under a Level 1 access
restriction, but he fails to identify which documents he intends to have restricted by their docket
entry numbers. If there are additional documents that Plaintiff is requesting to have restricted, he
must file a new motion and identify such documents by their docket entry numbers.

-2-