Opinion
13319-21S
09-21-2023
KRISTEN L. QUEVY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch, Judge.
On September 18, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion to Seal asking the Court to seal a yet-to-be filed First Supplemental First Stipulation of Facts. Petitioner's motion stated that the Commissioner objects. The following day, the parties filed the First Supplemental First Stipulation of Facts along with accompanying exhibits 16 through 25. (Exhibit 16 is mislabeled as exhibit 18, resulting in two documents being labeled as exhibit 18. But the description in the stipulation makes clear which document is which, and the parties need not refile their exhibits.) The exhibits contained in the First Supplemental First Stipulation of Facts consist primarily of personal medical records showing details about medical diagnoses and treatments.
Although our proceedings are public, we may place information under seal where appropriate. Section 7461(a) provides that all evidence received by the Court shall be public records open to inspection. Section 7461(a); see also Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 914, 917 (1985) ("As a general rule, common law, statutory law and the United States Constitution support the proposition that official records of all courts, including this Court, shall be open and available to the public for inspection and copying."). But section 7461(b)(1) authorizes the Court to place confidential information under seal. Rule 103(a) authorizes us to issue a protective order on good cause: "Upon motion by a party or any other affected person, and for good cause shown, the Court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or other person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense". The party seeking the protective order bears the burden of showing good cause. Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 920.
The determination of whether to seal evidence in a case consisting of psychiatric or medical records, or other highly confidential information, requires a balancing of privacy interests against the probative value of the confidential information. See section 7461(b) (1); Rule 103(a); Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 718 (7th Cir. 2006); In re Sealed Case (Medical Records), 381 F.3d 1205, 1216-1217 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 927 (7th Cir. 2004).
This case involves the question of whether damages received pursuant to a settlement constitute damages for physical injuries or physical illness and are thus excludible from income under section 104(a)(2). The exhibits at issue principally consist of medical records, including psychiatric records. Some of that information may be necessary to deciding this case, and petitioner acknowledges as much, asking that we seal this information "except to the extent necessary to the findings of the Court." But the medical records include information that may go beyond what is necessary to decide this case.
In weighing whether to seal such information, we consider the value of having the information be public. Because any decision in this case is not precedential, the evidence is of limited value beyond deciding this case. The records petitioner seeks to seal are deeply personal and may include information beyond what is necessary to decide this case. Any dispositive facts would naturally be referenced, and made public, in any opinion that might be issued in this case. To prevent disclosure of any additional, personal medical information, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Seal, filed September 18, 2023, is granted, and the First Supplemental First Stipulation of Facts (index no. 36) is sealed and shall be rendered not viewable to the public.