Attorney-at-Law

UNVEILING REVEILED

In Uncategorized on 03/08/2019 at 16:28

I’ve blogged a number of petitioners (and others) who’ve sought anonymity at The Glasshouse; the celebrated Dance of a Thousand Veils would be too few for such as they.

But today Judge Elizabeth A (no cognomen yet, but watch this space; suggestions accepted, no prizes awarded) Copeland encounters a petitioner who demands to reveal all, both as to herself and her ex.

Here’s Julia Castaneda, Docket No. 7697-17L, filed 3/8/19 (a special day in our family), seeking to unmask her personally identifiable information.

Julia filed unredacted, but a month ago Judge Copeland told her to file redacted, and in the meantime sealed the unredacted.

Now Julia “…argues that Rule 27(a) is permissive in that Rule 27(a) states that a party or nonparty ‘should’ redact instead of a prescriptive ‘shall’ redact. Ms. Castaneda further argues that Rule 27(g) grants her the right to waive the protection of her own personally identifying information. She additionally cites Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 5.2 FRCP) as further evidence in support of both of her positions. We give particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when we have no applicable rule. Rule 1(b).” Order, at p. 1 (Footnote omitted).

OK, that’s what Rule 27(a) says. And Judge Copeland is pleased to follow FRCP 5.2, especially Rule 5.2(e).

“Rule 5.2(e) FRCP states that, ‘[f]or good cause, the court may’ require redaction of additional information.” Order, at p. 2.

Julia can waive as to Julia. Tax Court might override Julia’s waiver, but there’s no need for that. Julia can let it all hang out.

But only as to Julia.

“Ms. Castaneda desires to waive her right to having her personally identifying information protected. In this instance, we will respect Ms. Castaneda’s desire. However, we find no basis for allowing Ms. Castaneda to waive the protection of a nonparty’s personally identifying information. While Rudy Castaneda was initially a party to this action, we dismissed him from this action for lack of jurisdiction…. While Ms. Castaneda and Rudy Castaneda are or were married, the petition that originated this action itself notes that Ms. Castaneda and Rudy Castaneda were then separated. Moreover, for each of the years which we ordered redaction, the filing status of Ms. Castaneda and Rudy Castaneda was married filing separate.” Order, at p. 3.

Judge Copeland is sending all this stuff to Rudy, so he can weigh in on Julia’s attempt to tell the world.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: