D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
Some issues are bubbling in this recently removed business dispute.
First, Propst has filed a second amended complaint. No 26. If leave of Court was required, compare FED. R. Cw. P. 15(a), the Court grants it after the fact. The motions related to Propst's first amended complaint, NQ 17, 19 & 20, are denied without prejudice as moot.
Second, the unopposed motions for more time to respond to Propst's second amended complaint, No 27 & 29, are granted. Answers or Rule 12(b) motions due by 26 October 2018.
Third, though the confidential-information issue seems to have dropped out of Propst's latest pleading, the Court requests that the parties revisit the Protective Order previously agreed upon, No. 9. Please propose a revised Order by 19 October 2018. The new draft should contain provisions about the redaction-first obligation, the sealing burden, a revised provision about disputes, and a sunset provision. See, for example, this Court's Orders No. 36 & 37 in case No. 4:17-cv-379-DPM.
Fourth, an Initial Scheduling Order will issue.
So Ordered.