2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-8-2012

John Hart v. Brooke Tannery

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3476

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"John Hart v. Brooke Tannery" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1443.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1443
1

GLD-097 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3476

___________

JOHN HART,

Appellant

v.

BROOKE TANNERY; CHRISTOPHER FERRY, INDIVIDUALLY

AND IN HIS OFFICAL CAPACITY AS A 

POLICE OFFICER OF THE HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-10-cv-03675)

District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 26, 2012

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 8, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

John Hart appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania, which denied his motion to seal the District Court record. For 
2

the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

The parties are already familiar with the facts of this case. Therefore, we limit our 

discussion to those facts essential to our decision. On July 28, 2010 Hart filed an 

amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court against Brooke 

Tannery, police officer Christopher Ferry, and Hilltown Township. The complaint 

alleged violations of his constitutional rights, and also included counts based on

malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest/false incarceration, and negligent 

misrepresentation, stemming from Hart’s arrest and incarceration in 2008 for alleged 

harassment of Tannery. The District Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on 

March 14, 2011. Hart’s appeal from the order was dismissed as untimely, and his request

to file his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under seal in this Court was 

denied. Hart v. Tannery, C.A. No. 11-2008 (3d Cir. June 28, 2011).

In August 2011, Hart returned to the District Court and filed a “Motion to Seal the 

Record for Failure to Comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Hart argued in the 

motion that Defendant Tannery had included “inflammatory and extraneous materials” 

with her 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his complaint, and that extraneous material should 

not have been considered under that Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He 

argued that because the documents were included for an “improper purpose,” the record 

should be placed under seal, pursuant to the District Court’s supervisory power. Hart 

also noted that after the complaint was dismissed, he was “granted expungement of a 

docket in state court which resulted in the removal and deletion from the public record of 

some of the same documents which Defendant Tannery improperly attached to her 
3

12(b)(6) motion,”1

The District Court denied the motion on August 10, 2011. Hart filed a timely 

notice of appeal.

and that he had other expungement petitions pending that might result 

in expunging from the public record other documents that Tannery had included with her 

filing. He asked the District Court to seal the District Court record and docket to avoid 

“defeat[ing] the purpose of the expungement order(s).”

2

The motion to quash argues that this Court’s prior order denying Hart’s request to 

seal his IFP motion precludes Hart’s request to seal the District Court record, and that the 

District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Hart’s motion to seal the record. We agree 

with Hart that our prior order has no bearing on the propriety of sealing the District Court 

record, and agree that the District Court had jurisdiction to consider the request to seal.

 Appellees Christopher Ferry and Hilltown Township filed a motion to 

quash the appeal. Hart filed a response in opposition to that motion, and also filed a 

submission in support of his appeal.

3

 1 Hart did not specify which documents had been expunged from the public record, nor 

did he include or reference any specific expungement order, or give any date for such an 

expungement. We note that the District Court opinion dismissing his complaint 

references a similar allegation from Hart that his criminal records associated with the 

arrest had at that time already been expunged. Dist. Ct. Op., dkt. #13, at 1 n.1 (March 14, 

2011).

 

2 Hart also filed a motion for reconsideration in the District Court. The District Court 

denied that motion on December 20, 2011. Hart has not appealed from that order.

3 “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been 

denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Nixon v. 

Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 

 
4

However, we find that the District Court properly denied Hart’s motion to seal.4

There is a presumption of access to judicial records. See In re Cendant Corp., 260 

F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001). A party seeking to seal a portion of the judicial record 

bears the burden of demonstrating that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious 

injury to the party seeking disclosure,” Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 

1994), and, further, that “[a] party who seeks to seal an entire record faces an even 

heavier burden.” Id. (emphasis in original). Hart’s motion in the District Court did not 

articulate a clearly defined injury, but instead alleged that certain unspecified documents 

attached to Tannery’s motion to dismiss were “inflammatory, prejudicial, and 

immaterial,” and that availability of those unspecified documents defeated the purpose of 

pending and completed expungement petitions that had expunged, or would expunge,

“some of the same documents.” These allegations do not meet the heavy burden of 

overcoming the presumption of access to judicial records. See Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 

at 194 (for “the party seeking the closure of a hearing or the sealing of part of the judicial 

record[,] . . . [b]road allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated 

reasoning, are insufficient”). To the extent Hart argues that the documents should not 

have been allowed or considered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), that is an argument that 

should have been raised on direct appeal; the argument does not demonstrate that any 

serious injury would result from the availability of the documents.

 4 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s order 

denying the motion to seal. In re Newark Morning Ledger Co., 260 F.3d 217, 220 (3d 

Cir. 2001). We may summarily affirm an order of the District Court “if it clearly appears 

that no substantial question is presented” by the appeal. I.O.P. 10.6.
5

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.5

 

5

 The Motion of Appellees Christopher Ferry and Hilltown Township to Quash the 

Appeal, including the request to impose monetary sanctions on Hart, is denied.