Rasmussen v. Thorne

Filing 24

MINUTE ENTRY for Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 2/27/2014. The Court Grants in part and Denies in part 17 Motion for In Camera Inspection. Counsel for the defendant to submit a proposed order to the Court no later than close of business on March 3, 2014. FTR: CBS Courtoom A402. (lag)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer Civil Action: 13-cv-02557-CMA-CBS Date: February 27, 2014 FTR - Reporter Deck - Courtroom A402 Courtroom Deputy: Brandy Simmons Parties: Counsel: ALLEN RASMUSSEN, Alison Lee Ruttenberg Plaintiff, v. LATOYA THORNE, Erin Lynn Powers Edward M. Caswall Defendant. COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER HEARING: MOTION HEARING Court in Session: 1:36 p.m. Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. This matter is before the court regarding Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Inspection of Confidential Dependency and Neglect Records and Authorizing the Disclosure of Such Records as Necessary for the Resolution of Issues in the Present Action [Doc. No. 17]. Colloquy regarding defendant’s request for an in camera review. ORDERED: Motion for In Camera Inspection of Confidential Dependency and Neglect Records and Authorizing the Disclosure of Such Records as Necessary for the Resolution of Issues in the Present Action [Doc. No. 17] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is denied as to the request for an in camera review. The motion is granted as to the disclosure of the records. Counsel for the defendant to submit a proposed order to the Court no later than close of business on March 3, 2014 . HEARING CONCLUDED. Court in recess: 2:07 p.m. Total time in court: 0:31 To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?