Opinion
23475-22L
06-15-2023
DEBORAH RACHELLE CHATMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On October 20, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, seeking review of a notice of determination concerning collection action issued with respect to her 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax years. (By Order issued April 4, 2023, so much of this case relating to petitioner's 2017 and 2018 tax years was dismissed on the grounds of mootness.) Along with the petition, petitioner also filed a Motion to Seal. In that motion, petitioner requests that the Court seal this case, as well as any matters and documents "with the IRS, New York City and State Tax Authorities, and California State Tax Authorities." As grounds for her motion, petitioner asserts that any "negative statements, flags, liens, or information" caused as a result of this case which are disclosed to an employer or prospective employer during an employment background check would "generally harm [petitioner's] employment status, and opportunities."
Given the foregoing, the Court temporarily sealed this case by Order issued November 23, 2022. On February 10, 2023, respondent filed an Objection to Motion to Seal, contending therein that "petitioner's broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasonings, are insufficient to establish the requisite good cause to authorize the granting" of petitioner's Motion to Seal. By Order issued April 4, 2023, the Court thereafter provided petitioner the opportunity to file a reply to respondent's objection, however, no reply has been received from petitioner.
The principles governing the sealing of records before this Court are set forth in Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T .C. 914 (1985), and its progeny. As a general rule, the official records of all courts are to be open and available for public inspection. 85 T.C. at 917. The presumptive right to access, however, "may be rebutted by a showing that there are countervailing interests sufficient to outweigh the public interest in access." 85 T.C. at 919. Therefore, the public right to judicial records is subject to the discretion of the presiding court to control and seal upon an appropriate demonstration of good cause. 85 T.C. at 917-918. In exercising such discretion, the court "must weigh the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount against those advanced by the parties." 85 T.C. at 919. The burden rests on the party seeking protection to "come forth with appropriate testimony and factual data to support claims of harm that would occur as a consequence of disclosure." 85 T.C. at 920. Conversely, conclusory or unsupported statements that harm could or would result from disclosure are insufficient. 85 T.C. at 920, 925. Merely asserting annoyance, embarrassment, or harm to a person's personal reputation is generally insufficient to demonstrate good cause and overcome the strong common law presumption in favor of access to court records. Anonymous v . Commissioner, 127 T .C. 89, 92 (2006):
Applying these principles to this case, we find that petitioner has failed to demonstrate a sufficient countervailing interest that outweighs the public interest in access to the Court's records. Petitioner makes only conclusory statements, unsupported by testimony or specific factual data, regarding the harm petitioner claims she would suffer. Furthermore, petitioner's expressed concerns appear vague and general in nature. This falls short of demonstrating good cause for the Court to direct that this case should remain sealed. Furthermore, this Court has no authority to direct the sealing of documents and records before the IRS or the taxing authorities of California, New York, or New York City.
Accordingly, upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the temporary seal in this case is lifted. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Seal is denied.