Y.S. v. John Doe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS
Y.S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE et al.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
OMNIBUS MINUTE ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S VARIOUS MOTIONS TO RESTRICT
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHRYN A. STARNELLA
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s:
• 	Motion to Seal Personal Information, Sensitive Financial Data, and to
Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in Response to Subpoenas [#5]
(the “First Motion”);
• 	Motion to Seal All Pleadings Including Personal Information, Sensitive
Financial 	Data, 	and 	to 	Limit 	Disclosure 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	Identity 	in
Response to All Requested Subpoenas [#11] (the “Second Motion”);
• 	Motion to Seal All Pleadings Including Personal Information, Sensitive
Financial 	Data, 	and 	to 	Limit 	Disclosure 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	Identity 	in
Response to All Requested Subpoenas [#19] (the “Third Motion”);
• 	Motion to Seal All Pleadings Including Personal Information, Sensitive
Financial 	Data, 	and 	to 	Limit 	Disclosure 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	Identity 	in
Response to All Requested Subpoenas [#23] (the “Fourth Motion”);
• 	Emergency Request for Retroactive Restricted Access to ECF Nos. 1,
2, and 3 Pending Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [#25] (the “Fifth
Motion”);
• 	Emergency Motion for Retroactive Restricted Access (Nunc Pro Tunc)
to All Pleadings, Subpoenas, Exhibits, Motions, and Proposed Orders
Including this Filing [#28] (the “Sixth Motion”);
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 11

2
• 	Motion to Restrict Access to Accompanying Emergency Motion [#29]
(the “Seventh Motion”);
• 	Renewed 	Motion 	to 	Restrict 	Access 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	Pleadings 	and
Exhibits [#32] (the “Eighth Motion”); and
• 	Motion for Immediate Interim Restriction Accompanying Emergency
Motion to Restrict Pending Court Ruling [#33] (the “Ninth Motion”).
I. 	Applicable Law
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”
United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1292 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Colony Ins. Co. v.
Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012)). “Although this common law right is not
absolute, there is a strong presumption in favor of public access.” Id. at 1293 (internal
citations and quotations omitted). The strong presumption of openness can “be overcome
where countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access to the
judicial record.” Id. (quoting Colony Ins. Co., 698 F.3d at 1241) (quotations omitted). Thus,
in exercising discretion to restrict access to judicial records, courts must “weigh the
interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced by
the parties.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted).
Motions seeking restriction must “articulate a sufficiently significant interest that
will justify continuing to override the presumption of public access” and must demonstrate
that no remedy short of restricted access can adequately protect the identified privacy
interests. Id. (quotations and citation omitted). D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c) specifically
requires that a party seeking to restrict public access describe: (1) the nature of the
materials or proceedings at issue; (2) the interest to be protected and why that interest
outweighs the presumption of public access; (3) a clearly defined and serious injury that
would result if access is not restricted; (4) why no alternatives to restricted access are
unavailable; and (5) the level of restriction sought.
II. 	The Motions
Plaintiff filed nine motions to restrict; all request the same or substantially similar
relief. Resultingly, many of the arguments raised in the earlier filed motions are mooted
by their subsequently filed counterparts. Therefore, the Court will analyze each Motion
beginning with the most recently filed.
A. 	Ninth Motion [#33]
In his Ninth Motion [#33], Plaintiff asks the Court to restrict the Eighth Motion [#32].
He states the Eighth Motion contains “detailed identifying, financial, and blockchain
tracing information[.]” Ninth Motion [#33] at 1. However, the Eighth Motion [#32] does not
contain that kind of information. See generally Eighth Motion [#32]. The Eighth Motion
[#32] is a motion to restrict. The Local Rules of this District require the public filing of
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 11

3
motions to restrict. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c) (“A motion to restrict public access shall
be open to public inspection[.]”) (emphasis added). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Ninth
Motion [#33] is denied without prejudice.
B. 	Eighth Motion [#32]
In his Eighth Motion [#32], Plaintiff asks the Court to restrict “all Plaintiff-originated
pleadings, motions, memoranda, declarations, and exhibits filed in this matter, at Level
2[.]” Eighth Motion [#32] at 1. In essence, Plaintiff seeks to seal everything filed by him in
this case. Id. at 2 (requesting restriction of ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 28, and 29). He explains that a cryptocurrency industry website recently
published an article about the instant lawsuit, and Plaintiff fears that this newfound
attention will “risk that the anonymous Defendants will further transfer, conceal, or launder
traceable assets,” thereby frustrating his potential recovery. Id.
Plaintiff essentially seeks a blanket order restricting all his fillings in this case;
however, many of these filings do not require restriction. Additionally, where filings contain
sensitive 	information, 	redaction 	appears 	to 	be 	practicable—despite 	Plaintiff’s 	bald
assertions to the contrary. Specifically,
• 	ECF No. 1 (Complaint) contains no sensitive information, such as specific
identification of account numbers or any other information that would warrant
redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing
must be lifted.
• 	ECF 	2 	(Motion 	to 	Proceed 	Under 	Pseudonym) 	contains 	no 	sensitive
information, such as specific identification of account numbers or any other
information that would warrant redaction much less restriction. To the extent
Plaintiff wishes to conceal the threats he allegedly received from one of the
John Doe defendants, the Court needed to discuss those threats in its
adjudication of the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym [#2] and the Court’s
Order is publicly docketed. See Order [#53] at 2-4. Therefore, Level 1
restriction on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 3 (Plaintiff’s Motion for Early Discovery) contains no sensitive information,
such as specific identification of account numbers or any other information that
would warrant redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction
on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 5 (Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Personal Information, Sensitive Financial Data,
and to Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in Response to Subpoenas)
contains no sensitive information, such as specific identification of account
numbers or any other information that would warrant redaction much less
restriction. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to conceal the threats he allegedly
received from one of the John Doe defendants, the Court needed to discuss
those threats in its adjudication of the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 11

4
[#2] and the Court’s Order is publicly docketed. See Order [#53] at 2-4.
Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 10 (Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion for Early
Discovery) contains no sensitive information, such as specific identification of
account numbers or any other information that would warrant redaction much
less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 11 (Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal All Pleadings Including Personal Information,
Sensitive Financial Data, and to Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in
Response to All Requested Subpoenas) contains no sensitive information,
such as specific identification of account numbers or any other information that
would warrant redaction much less restriction. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to
conceal the threats he allegedly received from one of the John Doe defendants,
the Court needed to discuss those threats in its adjudication of the Motion to
Proceed Under Pseudonym [#2] and the Court’s Order is publicly docketed.
See Order [#53] at 2-4. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing must be
lifted.
• 	ECF 12 (Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery) contains no sensitive
information, such as specific identification of account numbers or any other
information that would warrant redaction much less restriction. While the Motion
discusses transfers and withdrawal requests that occurred during certain date
ranges on three crypto currency platforms, the Motion does not contain
sensitive financial information. See [#12] at 3-4. Therefore, Level 1 restriction
on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 12-1, 12-2, and 12-3 (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 in support of Plaintiff’s Renewed
Motion for Early Discovery [#12]) contain no sensitive information, such as
specific identification of account numbers or any other information that would
warrant redaction much less restriction. While these three exhibits depict
specific transactions on specific dates, no exhibit contains sensitive financial
information. 	Moreover, 	Exhibit 	3 	“contain[s] 	no 	transaction 	hash, 	wallet
address, or verifiable data normally present in legitimate blockchain records.”
Pl.’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery [#12] at 4. Therefore, Level 1
restriction on Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 must be lifted.
• 	ECF 13 (Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order)
contains no sensitive information, such as specific identification of account
numbers or any other information that would warrant redaction much less
restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 19 (Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal All Pleadings Including Personal Information,
Sensitive Financial Data, and to Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in
Response to all Requested Subpoenas) contains no sensitive information,
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 11

5
such as specific identification of account numbers or any other information that
would warrant redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction
on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 21 (Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset Dissipation and
Request for Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding Renewed Motion for
Early 	Discovery) 	contains 	no 	sensitive 	information, 	such 	as 	specific
identification of account numbers or any other information that would warrant
redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing
must be lifted.
• 	ECF 21-2, 21-3, 21-4, and 21-5 (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4) in support of Plaintiff’s
Supplemental 	Notice 	to 	Prevent 	Asset 	Dissipation 	and 	Request 	for
Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding Renewed Motion for Early
Discovery [#21] contain sensitive information, specifically:
o 	Exhibit 1 contains specific information about Plaintiff’s Coinbase wallet,
the 	alleged 	scammers’ 	cryptocurrency 	wallet, 	and 	the 	specific
transaction identification numbers. Therefore, Plaintiff must refile, for
public access, Exhibit 1 with the cryptocurrency wallet identifiers
and the transaction identification numbers redacted. However,
Level 1 restriction of Exhibit 1 [#21-2] is appropriate for the unredacted
version of Exhibit 1.
o 	Exhibit 2 contains specific information about the alleged scammers’
cryptocurrency 	wallet. Therefore, Plaintiff 	must 	refile, 	for 	public
access, 	Exhibit 	2 	with 	the 	cryptocurrency 	wallet 	identifiers
redacted. However, Level 1 restriction of Exhibit 2 [#21-3] is appropriate
for the unredacted version of Exhibit 2.
o 	Exhibit 3 contains specific information about the alleged scammers’
cryptocurrency wallets. Therefore, Plaintiff must refile, for public
access, 	Exhibit 	3 	with 	the 	cryptocurrency 	wallet 	identifiers
redacted. However, Level 1 restriction of Exhibit 3 [#21-4] is appropriate
for the unredacted version of Exhibit 3.
o 	Exhibit 4 contains specific information about the alleged scammers’
cryptocurrency wallets. Therefore, Plaintiff must refile, for public
access, 	Exhibit 	4 	with 	the 	cryptocurrency 	wallet 	identifiers
redacted. However, Level 1 restriction of Exhibit 4 [#21-5] is appropriate
for the unredacted version of Exhibit 4.
• 	ECF 	22 	(Plaintiff’s 	Emergency 	Motion 	for 	Temporary 	Restraining 	Order
Freezing Digital Assets and Preserving Evidence) contains specific information
about the alleged scammers’ cryptocurrency wallets. See [#22] at 4, 10.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 11

6
Therefore, 	Plaintiff 	must 	refile, 	for 	public 	access, 	ECF 	22 	with 	the
cryptocurrency wallet identifiers redacted. However, Level 1 restriction of
ECF 22 is appropriate for the unredacted version of that motion.
• 	ECF 22-1 and 22-2 do not contain sensitive information and 22-3 and 22-4 do
contain sensitive information. Specifically:
o 	[#22-1] is a Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Digital Assets and
Preserving 	Evidence. 	This 	filing 	does 	not 	contain 	complete
cryptocurrency wallet addresses or any other sensitive information that
would warrant redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1
restriction on this filing must be lifted.
o 	[#22-2] is Plaintiff’s Rule 65(b)(1)(B) Certification Regarding Notice. This
filing does not contain any information that would warrant redaction
much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing
must be lifted.
o 	[#22-3] is the Declaration of Y.S. in Support of Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order. This filing contains specific information
about the alleged scammers’ cryptocurrency wallets. See [#22-3] at 1-
2. Therefore, Plaintiff must refile, for public access, [#22-3] with the
cryptocurrency 	wallet 	identifiers 	redacted. 	However, 	Level 	1
restriction of [#22-3] is appropriate for the unredacted version of that
declaration.
o 	[#22-4] is Plaintiff’s Proposed Temporary Restraining Order Freezing
Digital Assets and Preserving Evidence. This filing contains specific
information about the alleged scammers’ cryptocurrency wallets and
specific transaction identification numbers. Therefore, Plaintiff must
refile, for public access, [#22-4] with the cryptocurrency wallet
identifiers and the transaction identification numbers redacted.
However, Level 1 restriction of [#22-4] is appropriate for the unredacted
version of that proposed order.
• 	ECF 	23 	is 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Seal 	all 	Pleadings 	Including 	Personal
Information, Sensitive Financial Data, and to Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s
Identity in Response to all Requested Subpoenas. This filing contains no
sensitive information that would warrant redaction much less restriction. To the
extent Plaintiff wishes to conceal the threats he allegedly received from one of
the John Doe defendants, the Court needed to discuss those threats in its
adjudication of the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym [#2] and the Court’s
Order is publicly docketed. See Order [#53] at 2-4. Therefore, Level 1
restriction on this filing must be lifted.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 11

7
• 	ECF 24 is Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset Dissipation and
Request for Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding Renewed Motion for
Early Discovery. This filing contains no sensitive information that would warrant
redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing
must be lifted.
• 	ECF 25 is Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Retroactive Restricted Access to
ECF Nos 1, 2, and 3 Pending Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. This filing
contains no sensitive information that would warrant redaction much less
restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing must be lifted.
• 	ECF 28 is Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Retroactive Restricted Access
(Nunc Pro Tunc) to All Pleadings, Subpoenas, Exhibits, Motions, and Proposed
Orders Including this Filing. This filing contains no sensitive information that
would warrant redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction
on this filing must be lifted.
o 	ECF 28-1 is an exhibit attached to Plaintiff’s Emergency Request [#28].
The exhibit appears to be an on-line article about Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Because 	this 	article 	was 	posted 	online, 	it 	is 	publicly 	available
information. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing must be
lifted.
• 	ECF 29 is Plaintiff’s Motion to Restrict Access to Accompanying Emergency
Motion. 	This 	filing 	contains 	no 	sensitive 	information 	that 	would 	warrant
redaction much less restriction. Therefore, Level 1 restriction on this filing
must be lifted.
While Plaintiff maintains that he “does not seek to seal the entire docket,” Eighth
Motion [#32] at 3, granting this request would effectively restrict the entire docket. “The
public has a fundamental interest in understanding the disputes presented to and decided
by our courts, so as to assure that they are run fairly and that judges act honestly.” Black
v. Emerson, No. 25-cv-01035-WJM-NRN, 2025 WL 1635264, at *3 (D. Colo. June 9,
2025). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request runs afoul of the longstanding principle of publicly
accessible court proceedings.
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Eighth Motion [#32] is granted in part and denied without
prejudice in part.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Seventh Motion [#29]
Plaintiff’s Seventh Motion [#29] requests restriction of the contemporaneously filed
Sixth 	Motion 	[#28]. 	In 	his 	Seventh 	Motion 	[#29], 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	address 	the
requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c). In any event, the Seventh Motion concerns
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 11

8
filings addressed in the Eight Motion [#32], which the Court has adjudicated. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Seventh Motion [#29] is denied as moot.
D. 	Plaintiff’s Sixth Motion [#28]
In his Sixth Motion [#28], Plaintiff asks the Court to seal all documents filed by him
in this matter. See Sixth Motion [#28] at 3. The arguments contained in the Sixth Motion
mirror the arguments contained in the Eighth Motion [#32], which the Court has
adjudicated. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Sixth Motion [#28] is denied as moot.
E. 	Plaintiff’s Fifth Motion [#25]
Plaintiff’s Fifth Motion [#25] seeks to restrict his Complaint [#1], Motion to Proceed
Pseudonymously [#2], and his Motion for Early Discovery [#3]. These filings are
addressed in Plaintiff’s Eighth Motion [#32], which the Court has adjudicated. Therefore,
the Fifth Motion [#25] is denied as moot.
F. 	Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion [#23]
In his Fourth Motion [#23], among other requests, Plaintiff asks the Court to “[s]eal
all personal identifying information and sensitive financial data contained in this and all
future 	pleadings[.]” 	Fourth 	Motion 	[#23] 	at 	1. 	Contrary 	to 	the 	requirements 	of
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c)(1), the Fourth Motion [#23] fails to identify which documents
Plaintiff seeks to restrict. Instead, Plaintiff appears to request that the Court independently
determine which filings contain this sensitive information and impose any necessary
restrictions, both for already filed and future filed documents. Plaintiff also fails to explain
why redaction of these documents is impracticable. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(c)(4).
To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to prohibit third parties from revealing
information regarding Plaintiff’s forthcoming subpoenas, the Court has already ruled on
that issue. See Motion [#23] at 2-3; Orders [#45, #48]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Fourth
Motion [#23] is denied without prejudice.
G. 	Plaintiff’s Third Motion [#19]
In his Third Motion [#19], Plaintiff asks the Court to seal all his personal identifying
and financial information from any future court filings. Third Motion [#19] at 1. He also
asks the Court to direct any third party responding to a subpoena to “not disclose Plaintiff’s
personal identifying information without Court approval.” Id. at 1. The Court adjudicated
these issues when it addressed the Fourth Motion [#23]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Third
Motion [#19] is denied as moot.
H. 	Plaintiff’s Second Motion [#11]
The Second Motion seeks the same relief requested in the Third Motion [#19] and
Fourth Motion [#23]. Therefore, the Second Motion [#11] is denied as moot.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 11

9
I. 	Plaintiff’s First Motion [#5]
The First Motion [#5] seeks the same relief requested in the Second Motion [#11],
Third Motion [#19], and Fourth Motion [#23]. Therefore, the First Motion [#5] is denied
as moot.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Motion [#32] is granted in part
and denied without prejudice in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourth and Ninth Motions [#23, #33]
are denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth,
Seventh Motions [#5, #11, #19, #25, #28, #29] are DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to lift the Level 1
restriction on the following filings:
• 	Complaint [#1];
• 	Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym [#2];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Early Discovery [#3];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Personal Information, Sensitive Financial Data, and to
Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in Response to Subpoenas [#5];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion for Early Discovery
[#10];
• 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Seal 	All 	Pleadings 	Including 	Personal 	Information,
Sensitive Financial Data, and to Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in
Response to All Requested Subpoenas [#11];
• 	Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Early Discovery [#12] and Exhibit 1 [#12-1],
Exhibit 2 [#12-2], and Exhibit 3 [#12-3];
• 	Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [#13];
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 11

10
• 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Seal 	All 	Pleadings 	Including 	Personal 	Information,
Sensitive Financial Data, and to Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in
Response to all Requested Subpoenas [#19];
• 	Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset Dissipation and Request for
Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding Renewed Motion for Early
Discovery [#21];
• 	Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Retraining Order Freezing Digital Assets and Preserving Evidence [#22-1];
• 	Plaintiff’s Rule 65(b)(1)(B) Certification Regarding Notice [#22-2];
• 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal all Pleadings Including Personal Information, Sensitive
Financial Data, and to Limit Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Identity in Response to all
Requested Subpoenas [#23];
• 	Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset Dissipation and Request for
Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding Renewed Motion for Early
Discovery [#24];
• 	Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Retroactive Restricted Access to ECF Nos
1, 2, and 3 Pending Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [#25];
• 	Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Retroactive Restricted Access (Nunc Pro
Tunc) to All Pleadings, Subpoenas, Exhibits, Motions, and Proposed Orders
Including this Filing [#28];
• 	Exhibit [#28-1];
• 	Motion to Restrict Access to Accompanying Emergency Motion [#29];
• 	Renewed Emergency Motion to Restrict Access to Plaintiff’s Pleadings and
Exhibits [#32]; and
• 	Motion for Immediate Interim Restriction of the Accompanying Emergency
Motion to Restrict Pending Court Ruling [#33].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall maintain or impose
Level 1 restriction on the following filings:
• 	Exhibits 1 [#21-2], 2 [#21-3], 3 [#21-4], and 4 [#21-5] in support of Plaintiff’s
Supplemental 	Notice 	to 	Prevent 	Asset 	Dissipation 	and 	Request 	for
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 11

11
Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding Renewed Motion for Early
Discovery [#21];
• 	Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Digital
Assets and Preserving Evidence [#22];
• 	Declaration of Y.S. in Support of Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order [#22-3]; and
• 	Plaintiff’s Proposed Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Digital Assets and
Preserving Evidence [#22-4].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file the following documents for
public access with redaction of information consistent with this Order by Monday,
December 29, 2025:
• 	Exhibit 1 [#21-2] in support of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset
Dissipation and Request for Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding
Renewed Motion for Early Discovery [#21];
• 	Exhibit 2 [#21-3] in support of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset
Dissipation and Request for Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding
Renewed Motion for Early Discovery [#21];
• 	Exhibit 3 [#21-4] in support of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset
Dissipation and Request for Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding
Renewed Motion for Early Discovery [#21];
• 	Exhibit 4 [#21-5] in support of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Notice to Prevent Asset
Dissipation and Request for Nondisclosure and Limited Service Regarding
Renewed Motion for Early Discovery [#21];
• 	Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Digital
Assets and Preserving Evidence [#22];
• 	Declaration of Y.S. in Support of Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order [#22-3]; and
• 	Plaintiff’s Proposed Temporary Restraining Order Freezing Digital Assets and
Preserving Evidence [#22-4].
Dated: December 4, 2025
Case No. 1:25-cv-03129-DDD-KAS Document 54 filed 12/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 11 of 11