Franco et al v. Daugherty et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CHANNON ROSELYNNE FRANCO et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 23cv668 SCY/LF
ROSS DAUGHERTY et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL
Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave of Court to seal the reply in support of their
motion for a special jury questionnaire. Doc. 70. Plaintiffs explain that in the reply brief, they
embedded “a chart which includes photos of the minor Franco children.” Id. at 1. Defendants do
not oppose the motion. Id.
When analyzing a motion to seal, a court begins with a “strong presumption in favor of
public access.” U.S. v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1293 (10th Cir. 2020). The party seeking to seal
“bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.” U.S. v.
Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The court’s decision is
“necessarily fact-bound,” to be made “in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the
particular case.” U.S. v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985). Although courts have
discretion in this matter, Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978), the party
seeking to seal bears a “heavy burden,” Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 663
F.3d 1124, 1136 (10th Cir. 2011).
To the extent Plaintiffs request that images of the minor children not be in the public
record, the Court grants this request. However, Plaintiffs do not explain why their reply brief
must have the chart embedded in it, or why they cannot submit the chart as a separate
Case 1:23-cv-00668-SCY-LF Document 72 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 2

2
attachment. Therefore, given the presumption of open access, the Court grants the motion in part
and denies it in part. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to submit the chart as an attachment to
their reply brief, filed separately on the docket and under seal. However, the reply brief itself
must be filed open to public access.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00668-SCY-LF Document 72 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 2