Doe v. Lane et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 7 Motion for Protective Order, finding as moot 8 Motion for TRO, to this extend: (1) plaintiff my prosecute this action using a pseudonym, (2) the parties are prohibited from publicly identifying the plaintiff or disclosing identif ying information as to him to any person or entity not directly involved in the prosecution of the case, (3) plaintiff's idenity and any identifying information as to him shall be redacted from all public filings in this case; un-redacted copies of any filing including such information shall be filed under seal, (4) plaintiff is ordered to file under seal, not later than Monday, January 30, 2006, a pleading identifying the plaintiff. Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction is set for hearing on February 16, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 304. Defendants' response briefs shall be due not later than Monday, February 13, 2006. As more fully set out . Signed by Judge Joe Heaton on 1/27/06. (jw, )

Download PDF
Doe v. Lane et al Doc. 17 Case 5:06-cv-00074-HE Document 17 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHN DOE, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. WES LANE, District Attorney for Oklahoma County, in his official capacity and WILLIAM CITTY, Chief of Police for City of Oklahoma City Police Department, in his official capacity, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CIV-06-0074-HE ORDER The Court conducted a hearing this date on plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [Doc. #8] and plaintiff's motion for protective order [Doc. #7]. All parties appeared by counsel. The Court being advised of defendants' agreement that enforcement proceedings will not be pursued against plaintiff pending a hearing on plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order is STRICKEN as MOOT.1 Defendants do not object to plaintiff's use of a pseudonym to identify himself in this case or to the redaction of his name and identifying information in public filings, so long as plaintiff is definitively identified to them. Accordingly, in light of the agreement of the parties and the particular circumstances of this case, plaintiff's motion for protective order The agreement of the parties does not preclude the City from sending a new "60 day notice," but does extend to all other enforcement steps or proceedings. The agreement includes the District Attorney's agreement not to pursue revocation proceedings against plaintiff. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-00074-HE Document 17 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 2 of 2 is GRANTED to this extent: (1) plaintiff may prosecute this action using a pseudonym, (2) the parties are prohibited from publicly identifying the plaintiff or disclosing identifying information as to him to any person or entity not directly involved in the prosecution of the case, (3) plaintiff's identity and any identifying information as to him shall be redacted from all public filings in this case; un-redacted copies of any filing including such information shall be filed under seal, and (4) plaintiff is ordered to file under seal, not later than Monday, January 30, 2006, a pleading identifying the plaintiff. Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction is set for hearing on February 16, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 304. Defendants' response briefs shall be due not later than Monday, February 13, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 27th day of January, 2006.

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?