Opinion
26752-22
12-20-2023
NYGINA T. MILLS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Adam B. Landy Special Trial Judge
This deficiency case is before the Court on Ms. Mills' Motion to Proceed Anonymously (Motion) and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously, both filed October 11, 2022. Prior to filing the Motion, Ms. Mills filed a Petition seeking redetermination of a deficiency in income tax and proposed accuracy-related penalty for the taxable year in issue. Ms. Mills resided in Virginia at the time the Petition was filed. Absent stipulation to the contrary, this case is appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See § 7482(b)(1)(A).
In her Motion, Ms. Mills, in summary, argues that she will be subjected to professional discrimination, harm to professional reputation, and her personal safety and that of her family will be at risk if she is not permitted to proceed anonymously or in the alternative, the record is not sealed. Therefore, Ms. Mills maintains that the Court should grant the Motion. By Order issued December 30, 2022, this Court temporarily sealed the entire record in this case pending resolution of Ms. Mills' Motion.
On May 30, 2023, the Commissioner filed an Objection to the Motion arguing that Ms. Mills has stated unsubstantiated allegations of perceived harm lacking evidentiary support, and she has not shown good cause for the Court to grant the Motion. On September 25, 2023, Ms. Mills filed a Reply to the Commissioner's Objection. Citing Anonymous v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 89, 91 (2006) and the factors therein as to whether Ms. Mills has demonstrated the requisite requirements and good cause to proceed anonymously, Ms. Mills states that she has provided all necessary information and facts showing that the Commissioner would not be prejudiced if she was permitted to proceed anonymously.
There is "the general presumption of openness of judicial proceedings". Doe v. Doe, 85 F.4th 206, 210 (4th Cir. 2023); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir.1993); Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265-66 (4th Cir. 2014); see also §§ 7458, 7461(a) . "Pseudonymous litigation undermines the public's right of access to judicial proceedings" because "[t]he public has an interest in knowing the names of litigants, and disclosing the parties' identities furthers openness of judicial proceedings." Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d at 274. A trial court may, in our discretion, allow pseudonymous litigation because "privacy or confidentiality concerns are sometimes sufficiently critical that parties or witnesses should be allowed this rare dispensation." James, 6 F.3d at 238. (emphasis added). To warrant this relief, the circumstances must be "exceptional." Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d at 273.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In James, the Fourth Circuit set forth five factors for trial courts to consider when deciding motions to proceed anonymously: [1] whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; [2] whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent non-parties; [3] the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; [4] whether the action is against a governmental or private party; and [5] the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously. 6 F.3d at 238. Finally, according to the Fourth Circuit, trial courts have "an independent obligation to ensure that extraordinary circumstances support such a request by balancing the party's stated interest in anonymity against the public's interest in openness and any prejudice that anonymity would pose to the opposing party." Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d at 274.
In the alternative, we have broad discretion to seal the record or any portions of the record, if justice so requires and the party seeking such relief demonstrates good cause. See Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 914, 920 (1985); see also § 7461(b)(1); Rule 103(a). In determining whether sealing is justified, we weigh the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records against the interests advanced by the parties. Anonymous v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. at 91. A party seeking to seal all, or a portion of the record bears the burden of establishing that the harm from disclosure outweighs the public's interest in access. Id. at 92-93. The party seeking to seal the case must produce "appropriate testimony and factual data" to support claims of harm that would occur because of disclosure, Estate of Yaeger v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 180, 189 (1989), and may not rely on conclusory or unsupported statements to establish good cause, Willie Nelson Music Co., 85 T.C. at 920. As summarized by the Court in Anonymous v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. at 92:
Good cause has been demonstrated and records sealed where patents, trade secrets, or confidential information are involved or where an individual's business reputation will be hurt. . . .Merely asserting
annoyance, embarrassment, or, harm to a person's personal reputation, however, is generally insufficient to demonstrate good cause and overcome the strong common law presumption in favor of access to court records.
In her Motion, Ms. Mills contends that sealing is justified in order to protect her and her family from employment harm and reputational harm if her identity is made known. Ms. Mills has not made any fact-specific showing of harm to her if the docket record remains unsealed and she is unable to proceed anonymously. In her Motion and attached Memorandum, Ms. Mills provides conclusory statements as to the harm she claims she would suffer after initiating this action against the government. Furthermore, Ms. Mills' claims are unsupported by testimony or specific factual data regarding any harm. Therefore, the Court determines that Ms. Mills has failed to demonstrate that the harm from disclosure outweighs the public's interest in access to the Court's records.
Rule 27(c) provides that the "Court may order that a filing containing any of the information described in paragraph (a) of this Rule [regarding redacted filings] be made under seal without redaction. The Court may later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record." Rule 27(d) provides that, "[f]or good cause, the Court may by order in a case: (1) require redaction of additional information; or (2) issue a protective order as provided by Rule 103(a)." The Court determines that Ms. Mills has demonstrated good cause for the Court to redact certain filings to prevent any additional actual or perceived harm.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that Ms. Mills' Motion to Proceed Anonymously, filed October 11, 2022, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that to the extent Ms. Mills alternatively requests that the docket record be sealed in its entirety, that request is denied. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, the following documents are sealed to public view and shall not be inspected by any person or entity not a party to this case, except by Order of the Court:
(1) Ms. Mills' Motion to Proceed Anonymously (Doc. 8) and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously (Doc. 9), both filed October 11, 2022;
(2) The Commissioner's Response to Motion to Proceed Anonymously (Doc. 17), filed May 30, 2023; and
(3) Ms. Mills' Reply to the Commissioner's Response to Motion to Proceed Anonymously (Doc. 21), filed September 25, 2023. It is further
ORDERED that the temporary seal on the remaining portions of the docket record in this case is lifted.