Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cv-00087/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cv-00087-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Blankenship
Defendant
James Efird
Defendant
Brenda Franz
Defendant
Debra Rena Graciani
Plaintiff
Providence Health & Services
Defendant
Kelli Rinas
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

DEBRA RENA GRACIANI,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PROVIDENCE HEALTH & 

SERVICES, KELLI RINAS, 

JAMES EFIRD, BRENDA FRANZ, 

and JAMES BLANKENSHIP, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

Before the Court at Docket 99 is Plaintiff Debra Rena Graciani’s Motion to 

Permit Second Amendment of Complaint After Expiration of Deadline to Amend. 

Defendants Providence Health & Services, Kelli Rinas, James Efird, Brenda Franz, 

and James Blankenship (“Defendants”) responded in opposition at Docket 106. 

Plaintiff replied at Docket 109. 

Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Filing Document Under Seal 

and Plaintiff’s Motion to Challenge Confidentiality and Notice of Filing Document 

Under Seal at Docket 102 and Docket 100, respectively. Defendants responded 

in opposition to Plaintiff’ Motion to Challenge Confidentiality at Docket 104. Plaintiff 

replied at Docket 108. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 2 of 16

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint 

On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants 

alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) arising 

from discrimination during the course of her employment as a registered nurse at 

Providence Health & Services (“Providence”).1 Plaintiff was terminated on or

around November 1, 2016 by letter signed and delivered by Vicky Phillips, the 

Director of Clinical and Business Operations at Providence, “for allegedly failing to 

follow proper handoff protocols when transferring [a] patient back to the room.”

2

On August 1, 2018, the Court issued its scheduling and planning order, providing 

that motions to amend the pleadings “shall be served and filed not later than 30 

days after deadline for initial disclosures.”3 It further provided that the deadline 

for initial disclosures was August 29, 2018; thus, the deadline to amend the 

pleadings was September 28, 2018.4 Plaintiff did not move to amend the complaint

before that deadline. 

 

1 Docket 1 at 2, ¶ 4; Docket 1 at 12–16, ¶¶ 69–80. 

2 Docket 1 at 12, ¶ 63; Docket 99 at 2; Docket 99-3 at 2, ¶ 9. Following grievance and arbitration, 

Ms. Graciani was reinstated. Docket 99-3 at ¶ 68. 

3 Docket 25 at 5 (emphasis in original). 

4 Docket 34; Docket 31. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 3 of 16

On October 9, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 

1985(3) claim (Claim V), which the Court granted on April 8, 2018, dismissing the 

claim without prejudice and with leave to amend.5 

On April 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff’s motion sought to (1) add numerous additional 

factual allegations, (2) add individual defendants to the § 1981 claim (Claim IV), 

and (3) amend one of the Title VII claims (Claim III).

6

 Notably, Vicky Phillips was 

not among the defendants that Plaintiff sought to add. On May 6, 2019, the Court 

informed Plaintiff at oral argument that the motion to amend was untimely insofar 

as it sought to amend the § 1981 and Title VII claims, and informed Plaintiff that 

she would have to move under Rule 16(b) to amend the scheduling order to permit 

amendment of those claims.

7

 

On May 13, 2019, without withdrawing her first motion, Plaintiff filed another

motion to amend the complaint, this time under Rule 16(b), proposing the same 

amendments.8 On July 22, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion to amend

(brought under Rule 15(a)) on the basis that it was filed more than six months after 

the deadline to amend pleadings.

9

 But the Court allowed Plaintiff’s proposed 

 

5 Docket 42; Docket 54. 

6 Docket 61-1. 

7 Docket 74 (Minute Entry); Docket 90 at 4. 

8 Docket 78. 

9 Docket 90 at 6. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 4 of 16

amendments to add factual allegations to the extent they were permitted by the 

Court’s order at Docket 54 relating to Plaintiff’s §1985(3) claim.

10

 Moreover, under 

Rule 16(b), the Court allowed the proposed amendments to the Title VII claim and 

to the § 1981 claim.11 Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on July 22, 2019.12

On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed the current motion to amend/correct 

the amended complaint, seeking to add Vicky Phillips as a defendant.

13

 As a result 

of Plaintiff’s motion, the parties filed a joint motion to extend certain deadlines, 

which the Court granted, including the deadline for discovery motions, now 

December 30, 2019, and for dispositive motions, now January 31, 2020.14 

In her motion to amend/correct the complaint, Plaintiff explains that she was 

previously unaware of the extent of Ms. Phillips’ involvement in the events 

underlying the allegations in the complaint.

15 Although Plaintiff acknowledges that 

Ms. Phillips “signed and presented [her] termination letter” and “attended two of 

the union meetings,” Plaintiff maintains that she only discovered Ms. Phillips’ role 

in the events at issue in this case through emails produced by Defendants on 

 

10 Docket 90 at 6. 

11 Docket 90 at 7–8. 

12 Docket 91. 

13 Docket 99 at 1. 

14 Docket 101; Docket 103. 

15 Docket 99 at 1–2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 5 of 16

January 31, 2019.

16

 Specifically, Plaintiff relies on two email chains, attached as 

Exhibits 1 and 2 to the motion, to assert that she “now has evidence that Ms. 

Phillips was taking an active role in the group effort to develop a strategy to get rid 

of [her].”17

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request, emphasizing that the “only basis for 

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment are a couple of emails produced by Defendants 

nearly a year ago – which Plaintiff had for more than 6 months before she filed her 

last amended complaint in July 2019.”18 Defendants contend that good cause 

does not exist to permit the proposed amendment because Plaintiff has not been 

diligent. Specifically, they emphasize that Plaintiff knew that Ms. Phillips may have 

relevant information, given that she signed the termination letter and attended 

grievance meetings, but that Plaintiff “made no efforts throughout the course of 

discovery . . . to verify this.”19 Defendants add that Plaintiff’s purportedly new 

evidence, the two email chains, were produced to her on January 31, 2019, and 

that only lack of diligence could explain her approximate 10-month delay in seeking 

leave to amend.20 Defendants contend that they would be prejudiced by the 

amendment because discovery would need to be reopened, and the dispositive 

 

16 Docket 99 at 2. 

17 Docket 99 at 2–3. 

18 Docket 106 at 2. 

19 Docket 106 at 7. 

20 Docket 106 at 7–8. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 6 of 16

motion deadlines would have to be pushed back again.

21

 Moreover, Defendants 

maintain that the amendment would be futile, because Plaintiff’s allegations

against Ms. Phillips based on the two email chains “do nothing to implicate Ms. 

Phillips . . . of conspiracy” and thus do not “establish that claims under Section 

1981 or Section 1985(3) against Ms. Phillips would have any reasonable chance 

of success.”22 Finally, Defendants request that the Court award sanctions to 

Defendants in an amount equal to the fees incurred in opposing the motion.23

Plaintiff, in turn, defends the delay in bringing the current motion to amend, 

noting that “until [Plaintiff] found the [emails] . . . there was not information to 

conclude that Ms. Phillips was playing an active role in working to undermine 

[Plaintiff’s] employment.”24 Plaintiff maintains that Ms. Philips “did not participate 

in the investigation that led to the termination” and therefore the termination letter 

that she signed was not evidence of “an active role.”25 Plaintiff adds that her

“understanding was that [Ms. Phillips’] role [in signing and delivering the letter] was 

proxy for” another defendant, who was out of the office.26 Plaintiff’s counsel 

explains that it took time to go through the 3,375 pages of discovery produced on 

 

21 Docket 106 at 10–11. 

22 Docket 106 at 8–10. 

23 Docket 106 at 12.

24 Docket 109 at 2. 

25 Docket 109 at 2. 

26 Docket 99 at 2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 6 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 7 of 16

January 31, 2019 because she relied on Plaintiff’s assistance to decipher the 

documents, and was otherwise busy litigating this case and attending trial in July

in another case.

27

 As such, Plaintiff only came across the relevant email chains

on October 15, 2019.28 Plaintiff blames Defendants, in part, for the delay, 

highlighting the evasiveness of their responses to her interrogatories where 

“[i]nstead of answering directly, [Defendants] stated objections.”29 Plaintiff 

disputes that the amendment will cause any prejudice to Defendants, maintaining 

that discovery need not be reopened and emphasizing that there is no set trial 

date.30 Finally, with respect to the substance of the emails, Plaintiff maintains that 

they demonstrate “the racial discrimination that takes place at Providence” and 

implicate Ms. Phillips in actions taken behind Plaintiff’s back about which she could 

not have previously known.31 

“Once [a] district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which establishe[s] a timetable for amending 

pleadings,” Rule 16 controls.32 Under Rule 16(b), a court’s pretrial scheduling 

 

27 Docket 110 at 2. 

28 Docket 110 at 2–3. 

29 Docket 109 at 3. 

30 Docket 109 at 5. 

31 Docket 109 at 4. 

32 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992).

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 7 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 8 of 16

order can only be modified “for good cause.”33 The “good cause” inquiry “primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”34 While “prejudice 

to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a 

motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 

modification . . . [and] [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”35 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence or good cause 

to modify the Court’s pretrial scheduling order to permit the proposed amended 

complaint. Given that Ms. Phillips signed and delivered the termination letter and 

attended grievance meetings, Plaintiff could have inquired during discovery (which 

is now closed) whether Ms. Phillips had any further involvement in the events at 

issue in this case rather than assuming otherwise based on Plaintiff’s 

“understanding” of Ms. Phillips’ role.

36

 Moreover, Plaintiff has had the emails on

which she bases her motion since January 31, 2019, ten months before she filed 

this motion, and six months before the Court granted her last request to amend the 

complaint. In that instance, the Court warned Plaintiff’s counsel that she had not 

been the “model of diligence” and only granted Plaintiff permission to amend the 

complaint because an extension to discovery had mitigated the prejudice to 

 

33 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 608.

34 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609. 

35 Id.

36 Docket 99 at 2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 8 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 9 of 16

Defendants.37 Now, discovery is closed, and no such mitigation exists. Because 

the Court finds that there is not good cause to modify the scheduling order to allow 

Plaintiff to amend the complaint, it need not reach the question of whether the 

proposed amendment would have been futile. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Challenge Confidentiality and Notice of 

Filing Document Under Seal 

On August 24, 2018, the parties filed a proposed protective order, which the 

Court entered on August 30, 2018.38 The Protective Order provides that the parties 

can mark materials as confidential, thereby setting limits on their disclosure.39

Confidential materials are defined as including: 

confidential or sensitive proprietary, business, commercial, and 

personal information, including, but not limited to, medical records and 

information relating to person [sic] who are not parties to this case and 

information about former employees or contractors that is of a 

confidential or private nature, including current or former employees’ 

names, residence addresses, and telephone numbers; other 

personnel or business information that could unnecessary [sic]

expose one or more of the defendants to liability if disseminated to the 

public and/or that parties believe one or more of them may have an 

obligation to protect as private information.40

 

37 Docket 90 at 9. 

38 Docket 33; Docket 36. 

39 Docket 33 at 2–3. 

40 Docket 33 at 2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 9 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 10 of 16

In the event a party wishes to file confidential material with the Court, the 

Protective Order provides that the parties shall meet and confer to determine 

whether “the designating party will remove the confidential designation, whether 

the document can be redacted, or whether a motion to seal or stipulation and 

proposed order is warranted.”41

In connection with Plaintiff’s pending motion to amend the complaint, 

Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Defendants lift the “confidential” designation on 

two email chains she wished to attach as exhibits.42 Defendants agreed to remove 

the confidentiality designation for one of the exhibits—provided last names were 

partially redacted—but would not agree to do so for the other.

43 Accordingly, when 

Plaintiff filed the pending motion to amend/correct the complaint, she filed the email 

chain under seal, as Exhibit 1.44 However, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion 

to unseal Exhibit 1.45

The email chain at issue in Exhibit 1 is between InYoung Lee, the 

Providence HR Strategic Partner, and members of Plaintiff’s management team, 

including Vicky Phillips, and Kelli Rinas, Clinical Nurse Manager, James Efird, 

 

41 Docket 33 at 4 (Section 4.3). 

42 Docket 100 at 2; Docket 100-1.

43 Docket 100 at 2. 

44 Docket 99 at 3; Docket 99-1. On December 2, 2019, Plaintiff followed up with a motion to seal 

Exhibit 1, for completeness. Docket 102 at 1. 

45 Docket 100. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 10 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 11 of 16

Assistant Clinical Manager, and Brenda Franz, Director of Medical Surgical 

Services.46 Ms. Lee’s email summarizes talking points for a meeting scheduled 

with Plaintiff the following day, including a collection of issues and concerns raised 

by her coworkers.47 Among other things, the list includes specific examples of 

Plaintiff’s alleged treatment of patients.48 

In her motion to unseal Exhibit 1, Plaintiff contends that it “does not fit under 

any parameter of the definition of confidential material” as defined in the Protective 

Order.49 Plaintiff relays that during the meet-and-confer, Defendants only raised 

two concerns: the disclosure of employees’ names and Defendants’ potential 

exposure to further litigation because of the contents of the email chain.

50

 Plaintiff 

maintains that the first concern could be alleviated by redacting the names of the 

employees, and that the second concern is baseless as the email chain does not

disclose any “medical errors.”

51

 Lastly, Plaintiff adds that Defendants used a 

blanket confidentiality designation for all 3,375 pages of their production, and 

requests that the Court “order defendants to go through the discovery marked 

 

46 Docket 99-1. The Court only refers to aspects of the email made public by Defendants’ filing at 

Docket 104. 

47 Docket 102-1; Docket 104 at 3. 

48 Docket 102-1. 

49 Docket 100 at 2. 

50 Docket 100 at 2–3. 

51 Docket 100 at 3. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 11 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 12 of 16

confidential and either remove the confidential designation or provide in writing a 

legitimate basis for the claim of confidentiality.”52

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to unseal Exhibit 1, maintaining that 

the email chain contains personal patient health information and identifies by name 

employees who complained about Plaintiff’s conduct.53 Defendants emphasize 

that the email chain includes “specific instances in which [Plaintiff] failed to work 

collaboratively with her co-workers, at times to the detriment of patient care” and 

“includes complaints and areas of concern regarding Plaintiff’s procedural patient 

care practices, with specific reference to the treatment being provided to 

patients.”54 Defendants explain that they designated the email chain confidential 

because the substance constitutes “medical records and information relating to 

person [sic] who are not parties to this case” and “other personnel or business 

information that could unnecessary [sic] expose one or more of the defendants to 

liability if disseminated to the public and/or that parties believe one or more of them 

may have an obligation to protect as private information,” which are both 

categories of information covered by the Protective Order.55 Defendants contend

that unsealing Exhibit 1 would cause harm to third-parties, and Defendants, 

 

52 Docket 100 at 3. 

53 Docket 104 at 2. 

54 Docket 104 at 3. 

55 Docket 104 at 3–4 (quoting Protective Order at Docket 33) (alterations in Defendants’ brief). 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 12 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 13 of 16

because (1) it would constitute disclosure of personal or sensitive medical 

information, (2) it would run counter to Defendants’ public policies to protect 

internal complaints, and (3) it could subject Defendants to future litigation because 

the email includes concerns about Plaintiff’s procedural care practices.

56

 

Defendants point to the Providence Code of Conduct, which requires employees 

to report any concerning activity, and which promises to maintain confidentiality to 

the extent possible.57 Defendants argue that it is in the “private and public interest” 

to maintain confidentiality of complainants because the public trusts Providence

with their care and benefits from reports of concerning work conduct.

58

 

Plaintiff disputes that Exhibit 1 is a medical record, emphasizing that there 

is no patient information in the email chain.59 Plaintiff also challenges Defendants’ 

contention that employees who made reports would be harmed by the disclosure

as Plaintiff is not in a position to retaliate against anyone.

60

 Finally, Plaintiff 

contends that Defendants’ concerns about exposure to other litigation are 

unfounded as the statute of limitations has already passed and, in any event, any 

claims would be baseless as Plaintiff did nothing wrong.

61

 Plaintiff concludes that 

 

56 Docket 104 at 5–6, 8–9. 

57 Docket 104 at 8. 

58 Docket 104 at 8. 

59 Docket 108 at 1. 

60 Docket 108 at 1–2. 

61 Docket 108 at 2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 13 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 14 of 16

there is “no expectation of privacy or privilege that governs this document” and that 

it is “evidence that should not be hidden.”62

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”63 

However, courts “treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently 

from records attached to non-dispositive motions.”64 The Ninth Circuit has “‘carved 

out an exception to the presumption of access,’ for a ‘sealed discovery document 

[attached] to a non-dispositive motion,’ such that ‘the usual presumption of the 

public’s right of access is rebutted.’”65 “The public policies that support the right of 

access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force 

to non-dispositive materials.”66 Indeed, “[t]he application of a strong presumption 

of access to sealed records, not directly relevant to the merits of the case, would 

eviscerate the ‘broad power of the district court to fashion protective orders.’ Thus, 

a ‘particularized showing,’ under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will 

 

62 Docket 108 at 5. 

63 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)).

64 Id. at 1180. 

65 Id. at 1179 (quoting Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(internal citations omitted) (emphasis and alterations in original). 

66 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 14 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 15 of 16

‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached 

to nondispositive motion,’” such as Exhibit 1.67 

The Court finds that Defendants have made the requisite showing of good 

cause to keep Exhibit 1 under seal. Specifically, while the Court agrees with 

Plaintiff that Exhibit 1 does not contain actual medical records, it finds that the 

email chain contains detailed descriptions of alleged incidents involving patients, 

including specific patient treatments by Plaintiff.

68

 Disclosure of this sensitive 

information to the public could harm not only those patients being discussed in the 

email, but all patients at Providence, by raising concerns about the confidentiality 

of their care. These concerns outweigh the public and private interests in having 

access to this document.

69

 

Finally, the Court will not order Defendants to undergo a wholesale revision 

of their confidentiality designations, as Plaintiff requests. The Protective Order 

 

67 Id. at 1180. See also Phillips v. General Motors, Co., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (The 

“party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no 

protective order is granted . . . If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of 

information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a 

protective order is necessary.”). 

68 Docket 102-1 at 3–4. 

69 The Court has considered whether redaction would be sufficient to protect the material, and 

finds that it is not. See Father M. v. Various Tort Claimants, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(“[E]ven when the factors in this two-part test weigh in favor of protecting the discovery material . 

. . a court must still consider whether redacting portions of the discovery material will nevertheless 

allow disclosure.”). 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 15 of 16
Case No. 3:18-cv-00087-SLG, Graciani v. Providence Health & Services, et al.

Order re Pending Motions

Page 16 of 16

provides a mechanism for challenging confidentiality designations as needed, 

which includes a provision for judicial intervention if necessary.

70

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Permit Second Amendment of 

Complaint After Expiration of Deadline to Amend at Docket 99 is DENIED, 

Plaintiff’s Motion For Filing Document Under Seal at Docket 102 is GRANTED, and 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Challenge Confidentiality and Notice of Filing Document Under 

Seal at Docket 100 is DENIED. The Court will not grant attorney’s fees to either 

party with respect to these motions. 

DATED this 10th day of January, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

70 Docket 33 at 6. 

Case 3:18-cv-00087-JMK Document 113 Filed 01/10/20 Page 16 of 16