Henneberry v. City of Newark
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:13-cv-05238
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Henneberry v. City of Newark, Judge Hixson granted in part and denied in part a motion to seal portions of a trial transcript.
The ruling affected plaintiff John Patrick Henneberry’s request to restrict public access to specified trial-transcript pages, the defendants’ opposition to that request, and public access to the transcript.
What happened
In Henneberry v. City of Newark, the plaintiff asked to seal parts of the trial transcript concerning a third-party witness’s testimony. The court had found that testimony unfairly prejudicial, confusing to the jury, and inadmissible.
The defendants opposed the request, arguing that it was too broad. The court applied the standard requiring compelling reasons to overcome the public’s interest in access to court records.
Judge Hixson granted in part and denied in part the motion. He sealed specified portions of Volume 2 of the transcript but denied the request for the remaining portions because they contained counsel’s arguments and the court’s reasoning, not the unfairly prejudicial material.
The detailed version
- Henneberry v. City of Newark · No. 3:13-cv-05238
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
Plaintiff John Patrick Henneberry filed an administrative motion to seal portions of the trial transcript. The requested portions concerned testimony by a third-party witness. The court had previously found that the testimony was unfairly prejudicial, confusing to the jury, and inadmissible. The defendants opposed the motion and argued that the request was overbroad.
Legal standard
The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s “compelling reasons” standard for sealing trial records. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must identify compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweigh the public’s interest in access to judicial records and in understanding the judicial process.
Ruling
The court found that Henneberry had provided compelling reasons and factual support for sealing some transcript pages. It relied on the fact that the requested material involved evidence the court had found unfairly prejudicial and confusing to the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and inadmissible outside the jury’s presence.
The court granted in part the motion and sealed these portions of Trial Transcript, Volume 2: page 338:7-8 and 11; pages 339:11-341:3; page 341:8-17; pages 342:24-343:3; and page 343:8-16. The court denied the remainder of the motion because those portions consisted of counsel’s arguments and the court’s reasoning rather than the unfairly prejudicial material. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.