1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

TIMOTHY BARTON et al., 

Defendants, 

DJD LAND PARTNERS, LLC, and 

LDG001, LLC, 

Relief Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

§

§

§

§ 

§

§ 

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2118-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DENYING BARTON’S MOTION TO SEAL

Before the Court is Timothy Barton’s motion for leave to file under seal. (Doc. 

555). The Court has analyzed the proposed sealed documents line-by-line and pageby-page, weighing the public’s right of access against the interests favoring 

nondisclosure. The Court DENIES Barton’s motion to seal his motion for a protective 

order but GRANTS his request to refile the motion with the language at issue 

removed. 

I. Legal Standards

The Court takes very seriously its duty to protect the public’s access to judicial 

records.1 Transparency in judicial proceedings is a fundamental element of the rule 

1 See Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case 3:22-cv-02118-X Document 585 Filed 11/06/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 19547
2

of law—so fundamental that sealing and unsealing orders are immediately 

appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.2 The public’s right to access judicial 

records is independent from—and sometimes even adverse to—the parties’ interest.3 

That’s why the judge must serve as the representative of the people and, indeed, the 

First Amendment, in scrutinizing requests to seal.

“To decide whether something should be sealed, the court must undertake a 

document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of 

access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”4 If the Court seals information, 

it must give sufficient reasons to allow for appellate review.5 Finally, “[p]ublicly 

available information cannot be sealed.”6 

II. Analysis

Barton seeks leave of the Court to file a motion for protective order under seal 

with a redacted version filed on the public docket. He conducted a line-by-line 

analysis and seeks redaction of only particular phrases and sentences that reveal the 

nature of a certain line of inquiry the Receiver wants to bring against Barton’s 

finances. Though Barton conducted a line-by-line analysis, the information itself is 

neither confidential nor trade secret such that it should be sealed. The underlying 

information Barton seeks to protect with his motion for a protective order may

ultimately be judged to be confidential, but his general overview of the nature of that 

2 June Med. Servs. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2022).

3 Id.

4 Id. (cleaned up).

5 Le, 990 F.3d at 419.

6 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520.

Case 3:22-cv-02118-X Document 585 Filed 11/06/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 19548
3

information is not. Given that “the working presumption is that judicial records 

should not be sealed,”7 Barton’s vague description of the information the Receiver 

seeks does not overcome that presumption. His motion for a protective should 

therefore be unsealed.

III. Conclusion

The Court DENIES Barton’s motion to seal but GRANTS his request to refile 

the underlying document without the language at issue. The Court’s decision is the 

result of a page-by-page, line-by-line analysis. Such analysis “is not easy, but it is 

fundamental” to securing the public’s right of access to judicial records.8

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2024.

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 Le, 990 F.3d at 419. 

8 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521.

Case 3:22-cv-02118-X Document 585 Filed 11/06/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 19549