are a valid time, place or manner restriction.” The district court proceeded to consider the Ward factors and concluded that: (1) the restriction is independent of the content of the speech within the walkway; (2) the elimination is narrowly tailored to serve security, safety and asset protection purposes; and (3) the elimination leaves open ample alternative channels for .Plaintiffs’ speech. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). We have explained that a “district court has inherent authority to modify a preliminary injunction in consideration of new facts.” A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir.2002) (citing System Federation No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 647-48, 81 S.Ct. 368, 5 L.Ed.2d 349, (1961)) (<HOLDING>). Here, Defendants’ security concerns about
holding that trial justice has wide discretion to determine relevancy of evidence holding that the standard that the district court must apply when considering a motion to dissolve an injunction is whether the movant has made a showing that changed circumstances warrant the discontinuation of the order holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony holding that a district court has wide discretion to modify an injunction based on changed circumstances or new facts recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment