From the May 26 decision in Hayne v. Akoto, by Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Elizabeth G. Bentley, joined by Judges Keala Ede and Lisa Beane:
On July 2, 2025, over a year after [a 2022 harassment restraining order against her] expired, Akoto moved to have the record of the case sealed under Rule 4, subdivision 1(e), of the Minnesota Rules of Public Access. In that motion, Akoto asserted that the public accessibility of the HRO records “continue[d] to cause significant harm to [her] personal and professional life,” and that it had negatively impacted her “ability to obtain housing, employment, and to rebuild [her] reputation and relationships.” … The district court denied Akoto’s motion [and a follow-up filing that] attached exhibits purporting to show that she is underemployed and has had to live in poor conditions because of the public accessibility of the HRO records….
[T]here is a presumption in favor of access to court records. A party seeking to restrict access has the burden of presenting “strong countervailing reasons” or “most compelling reasons” why the records should be sealed. Then, “[a] balancing test is applied to determine whose interests should prevail. Those interests supporting access, including the presumption in favor of access, are balanced against the interests asserted for denying access.” …
The district court properly applied this balancing test. It explained that it applied the balancing test and concluded that Akoto’s arguments did not outweigh the presumption in favor of public access. More specifically, the district court expressed that there were no compelling circumstances that could rebut the presumption here and that “[a]ccepting [Akoto’s] arguments would essentially require the Court to seal every [HRO] when requested by a party.” The district court did not misapply the law….
Reviewing the record as a whole, we also see no indication that the district court acted contrary to logic or facts in the record. Akoto does not argue that the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts. Rather, she appears to ask this court to reweigh her privacy interests and the alleged reputational and professional harm she has experienced as a result of the accessibility of these records. But “the role of an appellate court is not to weigh, reweigh, or inherently reweigh the evidence.” …
