-9-
prejudice to the opposing party and the public interest in
knowing the identities of parties to judicial proceedings. There
is little risk of prejudice to respondent here. Petitioner wants
only to keep the information from public view. Petitioner is
willing to provide sealed copies of documents to respondent.
Further, the risk of severe physical harm to petitioner and
petitioner’s family outweighs the general public interest in
knowing the parties’ identities. Accordingly, we conclude that
the balance is in petitioner’s favor, and petitioner may
therefore proceed anonymously.
Prior Public Disclosure of Information
Respondent objects to sealing the record here because some
of the information has already been disclosed in a different
judicial forum, and the records of that forum have not yet been
sealed. Respondent argues that we therefore cannot maintain or
protect petitioner’s privacy due to the previous disclosure. We
disagree. The public availability of some facts in another forum
should not bar protection against the risk of future harm caused
by disclosure in this Court. See Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced
Textile Corp., supra at 1069 n.11 (“Past acts of bravery in the
face of danger is poor rationale for denying the courageous
individual protection against future harm.”); Estate of Yaeger v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 183, 190. The prior disclosure of some
information does not preclude our decision to seal the record in
this Court and permit petitioner to proceed anonymously.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011