Opinion by Justice Jewell, 14-25-01040-CV, January 27, 2026.
On appeal from Waller County
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a trial court commits a clear abuse of discretion when it denies a motion to unseal presumptively public court records—including docket entries and reporter’s records—without conducting a balancing test of competing interests or articulating specific reasons for the continued sealing on the record. Mandamus relief is appropriate to require the trial court to perform the necessary legal analysis under the common law right of access.
Relevance to Family Law
For family law litigators, “Agreed Sealing Orders” are a standard tool used to protect high-net-worth clients, sensitive custody details, and private financial data. However, this opinion serves as a critical reminder that such orders are not invulnerable to third-party intervention. Even in the context of a divorce, the common law presumption of openness remains the default. Practitioners must realize that a trial court’s silence is a liability; if a sealing order is challenged, the court must “show its work” by balancing interests and stating reasons on the record. Failure to do so invites mandamus relief, potentially exposing sensitive litigation details to the public or media.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This mandamus proceeding is the second involving Dolcefino Media’s efforts to unseal records in a divorce action between Jay Keith Sears and Debra Louise McLeod. The parties had operated under an “Agreed Sealing Order” for four years until Dolcefino Media intervened in 2025. Following a prior mandamus that established the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear the intervention, the trial court held a Zoom hearing. While the trial court agreed to unseal all signed orders, it refused to unseal any other records—specifically docket entries, reporter’s records of public hearings, hearing notices, and pleadings—without articulating any legal or factual basis for the continued sealing.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by maintaining the seal on various categories of court records without performing a balancing test of the relevant competing interests or articulating the specific reasons for its refusal to unseal the records on the record.
Rules Applied
The court applied the Texas common law right of public access to court records. Unlike the specific procedural requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, which applies to “court records” as defined therein, the common law provides a broader framework for accessing documents like docket entries and reporter’s records. Under this framework:
- Civil court records are presumptively open to the public.
- Trial courts have the discretion to limit access only after balancing relevant competing interests.
- If a court refuses access, the reasons for doing so must be clearly articulated in the record.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the trial court’s failure to adhere to the procedural mandates of the common law. Because the records in question—docket entries, transcripts of public hearings, and pleadings—are presumptively public, the burden was not on the intervenor to prove they should be open, but on the court to justify why they should remain closed. The Fourteenth Court noted that the trial court’s order was signed after a hearing where the relator was physically excluded from the courtroom and forced to participate via Zoom. More importantly, the resulting order provided no insight into the trial court’s logic. By failing to demonstrate that it had weighed the private interests of the divorcing parties against the public’s right to access the machinery of the judiciary, the trial court failed to correctly apply the law. The appellate court emphasized that even if there were valid reasons to keep certain documents under seal, those reasons must be identified and explained to survive appellate scrutiny.
Holding
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying public access to the records without balancing the competing interests or explaining its reasons for doing so. The court noted that a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying it to the facts.
The court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus in part. It directed the trial court to vacate its prior order and commanded the court to perform the required balancing test. The court clarified that while continued sealing might eventually be found appropriate, the trial court must explain its reasons for such a refusal on the record.
Practical Application
In high-conflict or high-profile matrimonial litigation, counsel must move beyond “agreed” orders and proactively build a record that supports sealing. If a media outlet or interested third party intervenes, you cannot rely on the court’s broad discretionary powers to protect your client’s privacy. You must present evidence of specific harm—such as the potential for financial fraud, threats to the safety of the children, or the exposure of trade secrets—to provide the trial court with the “competing interests” necessary to perform the balancing test. Without specific findings, your sealing order is a “sitting duck” for a mandamus petition.
Checklists
Defending a Sealing Order Against Intervention
- Identify the Category: Determine if the records fall under Rule 76a or the common law right of access.
- Evidence of Harm: Prepare affidavits or testimony detailing the specific, non-speculative harm that will result from public access.
- Request Findings: Explicitly ask the trial court to state its balancing analysis on the record.
- Draft Proposed Orders: Include specific language in your proposed order that articulates the reasons for the seal, ensuring they are “clearly articulated” to satisfy the Fourteenth Court’s standards.
Challenging an Overbroad Seal
- Identify Presumptively Public Data: Target docket entries, hearing notices, and reporter’s records of hearings that were held in open court.
- Object to Blanket Orders: If the trial court denies a motion to unseal without a hearing or without stating reasons, object immediately to the lack of a balancing test.
- Preserve the Record: Ensure the record reflects that the court did not articulate its reasons, which is the “hook” for mandamus relief.
Citation
In re Dolcefino Commc’ns, LLC d/b/a Dolcefino Media, 14-25-01040-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2026, orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
~~0ef5f0b7-15f0-4600-8c88-688706b39dca~~
Share this content: