Reynolds Polymer Technology, Inc. v. Duff et al
Filing
69
MINUTE ORDER granting 61 Unopposed Motion to Restrict Access by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/21/14.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01279-MSK-KLM
REYNOLDS POLYMER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID G. DUFF, and
ADVANCED AQUARIUM TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Reynolds’ Unopposed Motion to
Restrict Access [#61]1 (the “Motion”). In accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(d), the
Motion was 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 Motion [#61] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the
forty-one documents filed as exhibits to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion For
Preliminary Injunction [#62] and the forty-one documents filed as exhibits to Plaintiff
Reynolds’ Response to AAT’s Motion to Dismiss [#63] UNDER RESTRICTION at LEVEL
12.
Dated: October 21, 2014
1
“[#61]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.
2
Level 1, the least restrictive, limits access to the documents to the parties and the Court.
See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
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?