Martin v. City and County of Denver

Filing 97

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/27/14. Motion for Order to Cease Indexing Name 93 and Plaintiff's Motion to Seal 95 are DENIED. (lgale)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01376-PAB-KLM
FREDDIE K. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
DENNIS J. GALLAGHER, Office of the Auditor, in his official and individual capacities,
DAWN SULLEY, Deputy City Auditor, in her official and individual capacities,
KIP MEMMOTT, Director of Audit Services, in his official and individual capacities,
JOHN CARLSON, Deputy Director of Audit Services, in his official and individual capacities,
DAWN HUMES, Internal Audit Supervisor, in her official and individual capacities,
AUDIT SERVICES OF AUDITOR’S OFFICE,
BLAIR MALLOY, CSA Senior Human Resource Professional, in her official and individual
capacities,
BRUCE PLOTKINS, CSA Hearing Officer, in his official and individual capacities, and
CAREER SERVICE AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Cease Indexing
Name [#93] (the “Motion for Order”) and on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [#95]. This case was
closed on January 14, 2014. Minute Order [#92]. In the Motion for Order [#93], Plaintiff
seeks an order against Versus Law dba FindaCase (“FindaCase”) to cease indexing his
name on Bing search engines. Although the Motion is unclear, Plaintiff seems to state that
he does not oppose FindaCase maintaining the case caption and related documents in its
database, so long as his name cannot be found by the internet search engine Bing.
However, this case is closed, and FindaCase is not and never was a party to this lawsuit.
The Court has no jurisdiction over the company to order it to do anything. Further, in
regard to the Motion to Seal [#95], Plaintiff has not followed the mandates of
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 in order to restrict any document from this lawsuit, not to mention the
fact that Plaintiff has failed to specify any particular documents that he feels should be
restricted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions [#93, #95] are DENIED.
Dated: May 27, 2014