ORDER ON MOTION FOR RESTRICTED ACCESS

BOYD N. BOLAND, Magistrate Judge.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff, Walter Orlando Mancia Rivera, submitted, through counsel, a Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and a motion titled "Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion and Declaration for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as a Restricted Document — Level 2" (ECF No. 2), together with an attached Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion titled "Unopposed Motion to Strike Document 2" (ECF No. 4) seeking to strike the motion titled "Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion and Declaration for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as a Restricted Document — Level 2" (ECF No. 2) and its attachment because counsel mistakenly filed the motion to strike under seal along with the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The motion to strike will be granted.

Also on August 28, Plaintiff refiled the motion titled "Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion and Declaration for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as a Restricted Document — Level 2" (ECF No. 5) and the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 6).

The motion to restrict access (ECF No. 5) fails to comply with Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court concerning public access to documents and proceedings. Specifically, the Court finds too vague and speculative Plaintiff's concern articulated in the motion that the information contained in the attached Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 may be fodder for potential retaliation. The information requested in the Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 typically is part of the public record and is not restricted.

Plaintiff will be allowed ten days from the date of this order in which to file an amended motion to restrict access that complies with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. Failure to do so within the time allowed will result in the denial of the motion.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Strike Document 2 (ECF No. 4) is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will be allowed ten (10) days from the date of this order in which to filed an amended motion to restrict access that complies with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to file an amended motion to restrict access that complies with this order within the time allowed, the motion to restrict access will be denied.