Robinette et al v. Schirard et al

Filing 80

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 71 for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties and 73 Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances, granting 78 Motion to Amend Motion to Appoint Attorney Due to Very Unusual Circumstances, and restricting 72 Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/30/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02172-CMA-KLM
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,
-1-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, sua sponte, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to
maintain the following document UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL 1:1 pages 15-22 of
Plaintiffs’ second Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Complaint and Join Parties [#72].
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].

Dated: November 30, 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-