U.S. v. Flucas, 2116:2:17-cr-209-KJM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180815b27
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER PERMITTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT SEXUAL CONDUCT EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 412 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . The matter coming before the Court on Defendant's Request to seal Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion in Limine to Admit Sexual Conduct Evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 412, and the Court finding that sealing is presumptively required by Fed. R. Evid. 412(c), IT IS ORDERED that the defe
Summary: ORDER PERMITTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT SEXUAL CONDUCT EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 412 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . The matter coming before the Court on Defendant's Request to seal Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion in Limine to Admit Sexual Conduct Evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 412, and the Court finding that sealing is presumptively required by Fed. R. Evid. 412(c), IT IS ORDERED that the defen..
More
ORDER PERMITTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT SEXUAL CONDUCT EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 412 TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
The matter coming before the Court on Defendant's Request to seal Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion in Limine to Admit Sexual Conduct Evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 412, and the Court finding that sealing is presumptively required by Fed. R. Evid. 412(c), IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion in Limine to Admit Sexual Conduct Evidence is ordered sealed until further order of this Court. It is further ORDERED that access to the sealed documents shall be limited to the government and counsel for the defendant, and the alleged victims or their attorneys, subject to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order filed on the Court's docket. The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990).
Source: Leagle
