Conchas-Bustos v. Cole et al

Filing 13

MINUTE ORDER granting 3 Ex Parte Motion to Redact Privacy Information. Plaintiff shall file the Complaint and the redacted Attachment A and Attachment B on the docket on or before 3/20/2015. The Court considers the refiling of the Complaint and its attachments as the correction of a technical error. The Complaint and unredacted attachments [# 1 ] filed erroneously on the docket are STRICKEN. To the extent such documents remain accessible on the docket, the Clerk of the Court shall restrict them at Level 1. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/17/2015. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00511-WYD-KLM
EUSTAQUIO CONCHAS-BUSTOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW COLE, individually and in his capacity as a Detective with the City of Golden,
GOLDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, City of Golden, Colorado,
ROBERT DONALD, an individual, and
TMAAT DENVER METRO, LLC, doing business as Two Men and a Trunk,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Redact Privacy
Information [#3]1 (the “Motion”). In the Motion Plaintiff requests that Attachment A to the
Complaint, [#1] at 30-31, and Attachment B to the Complaint, [#1] at 32, be replaced with
redacted versions of these documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. Motion [#3] at 1.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the attachments should have been redacted pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. Unfortunately, because the Complaint and its two attachments were
filed as one document rather than three documents, it is not possible to simply replace the
existing attachments. As a result, the Complaint and the two redacted versions of the
attachments must be refiled on the docket. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#3] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before March 20, 2015, Plaintiff shall file
the Complaint and the redacted Attachment A and Attachment B on the docket. The
documents shall be filed with the Complaint as one document and each redacted
attachment filed as a separate .pdf document that is an attachment to the Complaint.

1

“[#3]” 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.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s refiling of the Complaint and its
attachments shall not be treated as an amendment as a matter of course pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Instead, the Court considers the refiling of the Complaint and its
attachments as the correction of a technical error.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and unredacted attachments [#1]
filed erroneously on the docket are STRICKEN. To the extent such documents remain
accessible on the docket, the Clerk of the Court shall restrict them at Level 1.2
Dated: March 17, 2015

2

Level 1 restricts access to the documents to the Court only.

2