Naomi Judd's Daughters Shut Down: 'Biased' Judge Will Not Recuse In Fight To Keep Death Records Sealed

Naomi Judd's daughters, Wynonna and Ashley Judd, appear to be fighting to have a judge recuse himself from a court proceeding that has been halted.

According to Radar Online, Tennessee judge Joseph Woodruff, who is presiding over their case to keep their late mother's death papers private, dismissed the Judds' plea to recuse himself, alleging he was prejudiced.

The judge refused the motion, according to court records acquired by the outlet, stating the arguments offered were not a "sufficient foundation" for recusal.

Wynonna, Ashley, and their mother's husband, Larry Strickland, are suing the Williamson County Sheriff, Dusty Rhoades, and journalists who sought records about their mother's death on April 30 of this year.

The singer of "Love Can Build A Bridge" died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Her family pushed for the lawsuit to be filed in order to prevent any images, videos, or audio recordings acquired by authorities as part of the inquiry from being revealed.

The Sheriff and the local media, on the other hand, think that these data are public and should be made available to the public.

Wynonna and Ashley Judd stated in court that the documents are "private, extremely sensitive, and would do nothing more than re-open the raw wounds of Naomi Judd's death."

According to the outlet, the police file contains body camera footage from the actress's daughter, pictures of the interior of the matriarch's Tennessee home, pictures of the gun that was used, Post-It notes that the singer left at the scene, and even text messages exchanged between Ashley and their family psychologist. It even captures Ashley's 911 call from the day she discovered her mother dead.

The litigation has been going on for several months, and the family has previously requested that the judge remove himself because he is accused of being "biased" and unfair to them during a court appearance.

Wynonna and Ashley Judd previously told Radar Online that the judge "acted in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to assume the Court has improperly prejudged this issue before a chance to be heard on the merits."

"The Court has voiced sentiments and drew incorrect inferences that would cause a reasonable and objective person to conclude the Court's judgment on the merits of this case is unlikely to change," they said.

But the judge is standing firm, arguing that though the family defied the court's scheduling order and even ordered them to remedy their problem, he would not apply any fines.

Unfortunately, the Judds will have to continue working with the judge.