Document Overview
SC 9th Circuit Common Pleas Case number: 2025-CP-10-05095Filing Date: October 31, 2025
Document: Plaintiffs' Notice of Clarification Regarding October 24, 2025 Motion for Leave and Exhibits
Document Type: Plaintiffs’ notice clarifying the filing status, redactions, and service copies of their October 24, 2025 motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
What’s here: Explains that the Clerk will apply requested redactions while preserving the original October 24 filing date; supersedes a prior reference to “refiling”; and confirms counsel is being served the original, unlocked motion package with no substantive changes.
Read it now
| Name | Description | Type | Filed | Docket Seq. | Documents |
|---|
| James C. McNeil |
Notice of Clarificatio Regarding October 24,2025 Mot/f Leave |
Notice |
10/31/2025 |
P1A14 |
Official copy
Restored copy
|
1-bit bitonal image encodingRestoredfiled
Executive Summary
Plaintiffs James C. McNeil and Meaghan Poyer filed this notice to clarify the status of their October 24, 2025 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and its exhibits. They state that their October 29 corrected-and-redacted exhibits filing sought only to redact a home address and remove a duplicate timeline page, and that the Clerk will make those redactions while preserving the original October 24 filing date. The notice also withdraws any implication in Plaintiffs’ October 30 response that the motion package would be refiled. Plaintiffs state they are serving defense counsel with an unlocked copy of the original October 24 package, with no substantive changes beyond the Clerk-applied redaction boxes.
Legal Significance
This notice clarifies the procedural status of Plaintiffs’ October 24, 2025 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and confirms that its original filing date remains controlling. It explains that the later corrected-exhibits filing sought only limited home-address redactions and removal of a duplicate timeline page, with no substantive changes to the proposed amended complaint or supporting materials.
The notice supersedes Plaintiffs’ prior suggestion that the motion package would be refiled, because the Clerk will instead make the requested redactions internally. It also confirms that defense counsel are being served an unlocked copy of the original October 24 package and that any difference from the docket version is limited to Clerk-applied redaction boxes.
Document Access
Restored copy: native text with the clerk FILE stamp
Unable to view the pdf on your mobile device?
Download the PDF
Machine-readable record
Verification hashes (SHA-256)
- Official copy
1f2ccc6bfa6ad8f8d3f7d52b42a567e25d7b3771fd7ce7632b90e34516ded15f- Native source
872ae1c74d65311d88dad4e6fdcc82f6e375858b3b2eb0ef3a6bcf6d6e45cf47- Restored copy
926a622bec0d72235cec7010a6daf9e389ea9f62ee392010709676f22fa18775- Normalized text
pending
Why this restored record exists
The official docket copy of this filing was stored by the clerk's scanner as 1-bit bitonal image encoding. Search engines, assistive technology and AI systems read that shelf. This page carries the filing as the author submitted it, the clerk's FILE stamp as an independent overlay, and the cryptographic tether that lets any reader confirm the two files are the same filing.
Parties in this Record
- James C. McNeil (Filed by)