Henneberry
Henneberry v. City of Newark
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JOHN PATRICK HENNEBERRY, Case No. 13-cv-05238-TSH
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL
CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 339 Defendants.
12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal. ECF No. 339. Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of the trial transcript relating to a third-party witness’s testimony that the Court found to be unfairly prejudicial, confusing to the jury, and inadmissible. Id. at 1-2. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion and argue Plaintiff’s request is overbroad. ECF No. 347. Motions to seal trial records are subject to the “compelling reasons” standard articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana. See In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed.Appx.568, 570 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he district court correctly concluded that the legal principles set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu . . . control the decision whether to seal paragraph 6 of…