Valverde v. Xclusive Staffing, Inc. et alMOTION for Leave to RestrictD. Colo.September 15, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Case No. 16-cv-00671-RM-MJW ISABEL VALVERDE; MARIA SONIA MICOL SIMON; and those similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. XCLUSIVE STAFFING, INC.; XCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC D.B.A. XCLUSIVE STAFFING; XCLUSIVE STAFFING OF COLORADO, LLC; DIANE ASTLEY; OMNI INTERLOCKEN COMPANY, L.L.C.; OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; JMIR DTC OPERATOR LLC; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and HCA-HEALTHONE LLC D.B.A. SKY RIDGE MEDICAL CENTER Defendants. MOTION TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT (DKT. NO. 91) CERTIFICATE OF CONFERAL PURSUANT TO D.C.COLO.LCIV.R. 7.1(A) Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with Defendants’ counsel prior to filing this Motion. Defendant HCA-Healthone LLC does not oppose this Motion. Counsel for all other Defendants indicated that “because Exhibit 5 is restricted I agree portions of the Response that refer to the substance of Exhibit 5 should be restricted.” Plaintiffs’ counsel is unaware of a way to partially restrict a document on ECF, so he is still moving to restrict the entire response. Case 1:16-cv-00671-RM-MJW Document 101 Filed 09/15/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3 2 MOTION TO RESTRICT Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 91) as a restricted document because it references Dkt. No. 52-5, which was previously designated as confidential, filed as restricted, and upheld by this Court as restricted upon motion. Defendants disclosed Dkt. No. 52-5 to Plaintiffs and designated it as “confidential.” Plaintiffs have not opposed that designation. Pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order, Dkt. No. 51 at ¶ 9, because Plaintiffs seek to file with the Court a document designated “confidential,” it is Plaintiffs’ responsibility to move to restrict that document under D.C.COLO.LCiv.R. 7.2. Notwithstanding that Local Rule 7.2 states that “stipulations between the parties or stipulated protective orders with regard to discovery, alone, are insufficient to justify restriction,” Plaintiffs understand the Protective Order as requiring them to file this Motion. Besides its designation as “confidential,” however, Plaintiffs do not have any basis for thinking Dkt. Nos. 52-5 or 91 should be restricted. Respectfully Submitted, s/Alexander Hood___ Alexander Hood Towards Justice 1535 High St., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Tel.: 720-239-2606 Fax: 303-957-2289 Email: alex@towardsjustice.org Attorney for Plaintiffs Case 1:16-cv-00671-RM-MJW Document 101 Filed 09/15/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3 3 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on 9/15/2016, I served a true and correct copy of the forgoing on all parties that have appeared pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5. s/Alexander Hood__ Alexander Hood Case 1:16-cv-00671-RM-MJW Document 101 Filed 09/15/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
