-4-
594, 596 (7th Cir. 1978); Willie Nelson Music Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 920; Tavano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1991-237, affd. 986 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir. 1993). To determine
whether sealing the record is appropriate, we must weigh the
presumption, however gauged, in favor of public access to
judicial records against the interests advanced by the parties.
Nixon v. Warner Commcns., Inc., supra at 602; AT&T Co. v. Grady,
supra at 598; Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, supra at
919.
Taxpayers seeking to seal court records must come forward
with appropriate testimony and factual data to show good cause.
Estate of Yaeger v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 180, 189 (1989); Willie
Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 920 (citing Wyatt v.
Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 283 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v.
United Fruit Co., 410 F.2d 553, 557 n.11 (5th Cir. 1969)); Tavano
v. Commissioner, supra. Taxpayers may not rely on conclusory or
unsupported statements to establish claims of harm that would
result from disclosure. Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner,
supra at 920; In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum
Prods. Antitrust Litig., supra at 44.
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. See
In re Smith, 656 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1981) (striking an
individual’s name from factual resumes on due process grounds as
resumes were prepared in criminal proceeding where the individual
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011