There’s a need to provide a safe road to public filing of redacted Excel spreadsheets, heavy-laden with “metadata, formulas, hidden worksheets, hidden rows or columns, comments, notes, named ranges, pivot tables, cached values, document properties, external links, macros, filters, and other embedded workbook features.” So opines Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way at p. 4 of Marc Worrall & Sue J. Worrall, et al., Docket No. 14793-22, filed 10/15/26.

This is Discovery Kerfuffle No. 4 that I’ve blogged in this ongoing drama.

A fight over the filing of redacted trial exhibits arises from IRS’ attempt to do so, claiming it has obliterated any PII or other matter shielded by Judge Way’s previous protective order. Marc’s & Sue’s nine (count ’em, nine) trusty attorneys  object, citing the Excel spreadsheets’ backchannel porosities, trapdoors, and hidden interstices as hereinabove set forth.

So Judge Way sets up a phoneathon. 

“We agree with petitioners that respondent’s broad assurances that the exhibits have been properly redacted are insufficient to establish that confidential information does not remain accessible through metadata, formulas, or other embedded features. We are especially cautious where, as here, many of the exhibits are Excel workbooks with complex file structures spanning thousands of pages. We would have expected, at minimum, exhibit-by-exhibit descriptions of what information was removed and a technical certification describing the steps taken to remove it. Even so, risks remain.” Order, at p.3.

So tech-savvy Judge Way finds an Adobe-lined path that satisfies everyone, IRS, Marc & Sue, and the third-parties subpoenaed into this slugfest.

“The Court proposed that respondent instead convert the relevant portions of the Excel files to PDF format and perform his proposed redactions directly on the PDFs to avoid the risk that confidential information remains embedded in the file structure. Both parties agreed that this was a workable solution.” Order, at p. 3.

I know the native-format crowd will yell that villainous PDF digg’d out of exhibits all that backchannel stuff they so need to eyeball. But parties and third-parties can still scope the stuff in secret, and the data they see in secret will reward them.

No, not another microcaptivity dodge; this is STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel adding a gloss to the NY-NJ rivalry. Writing from a trial session on this Minor Outlying Island off the Coast of N. America, STJ Publius Siegel assures Bruce Ammerman, Docket No. 11069-25, filed 10/14/26, as to the status of his home State.

“There is no dispute that the Notice was addressed to and received by Mr. Ammerman at an address in New Jersey. There is no dispute that the Petition was filed with the Court more than 90 days after the issuance of the Notice. And Mr. Ammerman does not argue that equitable tolling should apply to extend the period for filing. Rather, he contends that he was ‘outside the United States’ as he claims to understand that term and thus should be entitled to the 150-day filing period. Although polite, Mr. Ammerman is very clearly incorrect: New Jersey is part of the United States. The 90-day period applies.” Order, at p. 2.

“New Jersey is part of the United States.” Are you sure, Judge?

That’s how Judge Joseph W. Nega finds the testimony in MD M. Rahman & Syeda Momotaz, Docket No. 8286-23, filed 10/13/26. It comes from MD M. explaining his accounting methods.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide Judge Nega enough to Cohanize whatever expenses Rahman claims above whatever IRS and he stiped.

 “In his testimony, Mr. Rahman not only insisted that he should prevail entirely on all disputed deduction amounts, but he repeatedly explained petitioners total lack of documentation as a result of the looting of his store on June 1st, 2020, and March 28th, 2021.

“However, his testimony did not explain how then he was able to substantiate all the deductions allowed in the stipulation of settled issues and during the examination but none of the items that now remain at issue. His admission regarding his incomplete bookkeeping and his habit of paying personal expenses from his business account do not bolster his arguments. While his testimony is refreshing, it does not give the Court enough to apply a Cohan analysis.” Transcript, at p.11.