French v. Denver Public Schools

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 23-cv-01614-NYW-MDB
JOHN PIERRE FRENCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case (“Motion to Seal”)
[Doc. 57, filed September 25, 2025] and the Notice of Hearing Being Scheduled (“Notice”)
[Doc. 58, filed October 31, 2025]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is
respectfully DENIED, the Notice is CONSTRUED as a motion, and the Notice is
respectfully DENIED as moot.
John Pierre French (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. French”) filed the Motion to Seal and the
Notice pro se. See [Doc. 57 at 2; Doc. 58]. However, the Court notes that Mr. French
remains represented by counsel, as a review of the docket does not indicate that Mr.
French’s counsel has withdrawn. The Court generally will not consider papers filed pro
se by a represented party. Lee v. Imperial Lending, LLC, No. 06-cv-02388-ZLW-BNB,
2007 WL 3090800, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 18, 2007) (“Parties represented by counsel may
not file papers pro se.”); Durham v. Lappin, 2006 WL 2724091, at *14 (D. Colo. Sept. 21,
2006) (“[T]he Court will not entertain pro se motions by a party who is represented by
counsel.”). Accordingly, Mr. French may only proceed through counsel. This procedural
basis alone is sufficient to justify the denial of the Motion to Seal.
Even considering the substance of the Motion, the Court finds denial appropriate.
In the Motion to Seal, Mr. French requests that the Court “seal all filings, orders, and
docket entries in this case to prevent further harm to Plaintiff’s reputation and career.”
[Doc. 57 at 2]. Mr. French argues that the “public availability of the filings in this case has
caused significant harm to Plaintiff’s reputation and career.” [Id. at 1]. He indicates that
this case “involve[s] sensitive matters, including claims of discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation” and that he “has been forced to leave the state to secure employment, yet the
allegations and proceedings in this case continue to follow him, negatively impacting his
ability to maintain employment and rebuild his professional reputation.” [Id.].
Case No. 1:23-cv-01614-NYW-MDB Document 59 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
“Although courts have discretion, sealing litigation documents, to say nothing of
entire cases, is disfavored in the United States.” Miller v. Fluent Home, LLC, No. 2:20-
cv-00641, 2020 WL 5659051, at *1 (D. Utah Sept. 23, 2020) (footnote omitted) (declining
a request to seal an entire case to prevent harm to defendant’s reputation). Under Local
Rule 7.2, “[u]nless restricted by statute, rule of civil procedure, or court order, the public
shall have access to all documents filed with the court and all court proceedings.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2(a). As the Judicial Conference of the United States and courts in
this District have stated, “sealing an entire case is a last resort” that courts should only
turn to when “required by statute or rule or justified by a showing of extraordinary
circumstances and the absence of narrower feasible and effective alternatives (such as
sealing discrete documents or redacting information).” Black v. Emerson, No. 25-cv-
01035-WJM-NRN, 2025 WL 1635264, at *3 (D. Colo. June 9, 2025) (quoting Judicial
Conference of the United States, Judicial Conference Policy on Sealed Cases (Sept. 13,
2011)). “[I]n general, courts have declined to seal, or have unsealed, records when the
information is already publicly accessible.” Jacobs v. J. Publ’g Co., No. 1:21-cv-00690-
MV-SCY, 2022 WL 540955, at *3 (D.N.M. Feb. 23, 2022).
Mr. French filed this action on June 23, 2023, in his own name. [Doc. 1]. Final
judgment entered against Plaintiff in this case on December 19, 2024, in his own name.
[Doc. 54]. At no time during the two-year course of litigation did Mr. French seek to restrict
any filing or information. Because the records have been publicly accessible for over two
years, the Court respectfully declines to restrict the entire case. See Jacobs, 2022 WL
540955, at *3. Nor does the case law support the proposition that Mr. French would have
be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym, even if he had sought to do so—which he
did not. See W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (“When a party
wishes to file a case anonymously or under a pseudonym, it must first petition the district
court for permission to do so.”). Cf. Doe v. Doe, No. 649 F. Supp. 3d 136, 141 (E.D.N.C.
2023) (observing in a sexual assault case, “[i]t would be fundamentally unfair for [a]
plaintiff to be able to ‘clear his name’ and wield a potential [judgment] against [his accuser]
to his advantage but hide under a shield of anonymity if unsuccessful”), aff’d, 85 F.4th
206 (4th Cir. 2023).
Finally, Mr. French focuses his arguments on the case’s harm to his reputation.
Respectfully, such arguments fail to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” that
require sealing the entire case. Black, 2025 WL 1635264, at *3; Schur v. Berntsen, No.
2:22-cv-00013, 2024 WL 54430, at *3 (D. Utah Jan. 4, 2024) (“An allegation of continued
harassment or reputational damage is insufficient to abrogate the public’s right to know
what happens in its courts.”). Therefore, even considering the substance of the Motion,
this Court respectfully DENIES the Motion to Seal.
In the Notice, Mr. French appears to request a hearing with the Court on November
18, 2025 to discuss the Motion to Seal. See [Doc. 58 at 1]. Because Mr. French requests
relief in the Notice, the Court CONSTRUES the Notice as a motion for a status conference
regarding the Motion to Seal. Based on the Court’s conclusions herein, the Court
respectfully DENIES the Notice as moot.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01614-NYW-MDB Document 59 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Case [Doc. 57] is DENIED;
(2) The Notice of Hearing Being Scheduled [Doc. 58] is DENIED as moot; and
(3) Because Mr. French filed the Motion and Notice pro se, as a one-time
courtesy, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to:
John Pierre French
P.O. Box 147
Minneola, Kansas 67865
DATED: November 3, 2025
Case No. 1:23-cv-01614-NYW-MDB Document 59 filed 11/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3