Channon Roselynne Franco et al. v. Ross Daugherty et al.

D. New Mexico

Channon Roselynne Franco et al. v. Ross Daugherty et al.

DecidedNovember 26, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-00668

StatusUnknown

This text of Channon Roselynne Franco et al. v. Ross Daugherty et al. (Channon Roselynne Franco et al. v. Ross Daugherty et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Channon Roselynne Franco et al. v. Ross Daugherty et al., (D.N.M. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Channon Roselynne Franco et al. v. Ross Daugherty et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/channon-roselynne-franco-et-al-v-ross-daugherty-et-al-nmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack