Goldblatt et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOEL C. GOLDBLATT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 1:25-cv-01179-JHR-KK
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING SEALED DOCUMENTS
Counsel for Defendant Wells Fargo contacted the Clerk’s Office stating: (i) Plaintiff filed
a document under seal; (ii) Counsel did not receive a conformed copy; (ii) a request for a copy of
the document; and (iv) Plaintiffs keep filing documents under seal without a court order or
authorization to do so. Plaintiff Joel Goldblatt has electronically filed three documents which are
sealed. 	See Doc. 9, filed January 29, 2026; Doc.14, filed February 4, 2026; Doc. 17, filed
February 24, 2026; see also Order on Pending Motions at 2, Doc. 7, filed December 12, 2025
(granting pro se Plaintiffs permission to file documents electronically, notifying Plaintiffs that the
Court will revoke permission to file electronically if Plaintiffs abuse their electronic filing privilege
or fail to comply with the rules and procedures regarding electronic filing, and notifying Plaintiffs
that failure to comply with Court Orders and the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure
interferes with the judicial process and may result in monetary and non-monetary sanctions
including filing restrictions and dismissal of this case).
Because sealed documents filed in CM/ECF are no longer accessible or viewable
electronically, service of those documents can no longer be accomplished through
CM/ECF. Parties must serve sealed documents by other appropriate means and as
provided by the Federal Rules of Procedure. The Court will serve its sealed
documents in paper by mail.
Case 1:25-cv-01179-KWR-LF Document 18 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Administrative Order, No. 25-MC-00004-25 (stating that a party with the right to access a sealed
document may request additional copies of sealed documents subject to paper copy fees).
There is a longstanding common-law right of public access to judicial records.
United States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013). This right “is
fundamental to the democratic state” and preserves “the integrity of the law
enforcement and judicial processes” by allowing the public to see how courts make
their decisions. United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1297 (10th Cir. 2020) (first
quoting United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 315 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and then
quoting United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985)). The right of
access is not absolute, but the party seeking to seal a judicial record must show
“some significant interest that outweighs” the public interest in access to the
records. Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v.
Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)). This burden is “heavy,” and
sealing is appropriate only when the interest in confidentiality is “real and
substantial.” Id.; see 10th Cir. R. 25.6(A)(3) (requiring the movant to “articulate a
substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to the document”);
Brown v. Flowers, 974 F.3d 1178, 1187–88 (10th Cir. 2020) (“We will not
permanently seal any documents unless [the movant] ‘overcomes a presumption in
favor of access to judicial records by articulat[ing] a real and substantial interest
that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform our decision-
making process.’ ” (quoting Sacchi v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 918 F.3d 1155, 1160
(10th Cir. 2019) (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
McWilliams v. Dinapoli, 40 F.4th 1118, 1130-31, 1133 (10th Cir. 2022). Plaintiff Goldblatt has not
shown a real and substantial interest in depriving the public access to those documents.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	Plaintiff Goldblatt shall, within 14 days of entry of this Order, serve all parties with
a copy of all documents he has filed under seal. 	Replies to Plaintiff Goldblatt’s
Response, Doc. 17, is due 14 days after service of the Response.
(ii) 	Plaintiff Goldblatt shall, within 14 days of entry of this Order, show cause why the
Court should not make the sealed documents available to the public. 	Failure to
timely show cause may result in the Court granting the public access to those
documents.
Case 1:25-cv-01179-KWR-LF Document 18 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 3

3
If Plaintiff Goldblatt continues to fail to properly serve all parties or continues to file sealed
documents without showing a real and substantial interest in restricting access to those documents,
the Court may revoke Plaintiff Goldblatt’s permission to file documents electronically and/or
impose other sanctions.
_____________________________________
KIRTAN KHALSA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01179-KWR-LF Document 18 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 3