Judge Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda took the words out of my wordprocessor when he wrote today’s order in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., Sirius Solutions GP, L.L.C., Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 11587-20, filed 10/5/21.* Btw, a triple LP is one where not even the GP is personally liable.
Howbeit, the triple LP wants some 2014 tax returns sealed, claiming they contain personally identifiable information, disclosure of which “… presents serious privacy and security concerns and has the potential to do irreparable harm, particularly to the partners’ minor children.” Order, at p. 1.
IRS objects that “… the return information dates from 2014, which suggests that the information contained therein may no longer be sensitive. He also points out that the temporal interval may lessen concerns about children, some of whom (apparently) have achieved majority….. And he contends that similar privacy concerns to the ones raised by Sirius are present in nearly every case before this Court.” Order, at p. 1.
Yo, Genius Baristas, and 18Fs (if you’re still around), listen up! Pay attention to the man in the black robes.
“It would be helpful for the Court to hear from Sirius on these points, bearing in mind that the party seeking to seal the case must produce ‘appropriate testimony and factual data’ to support claims of harm that would occur as a consequence of disclosure…, and may not rely on conclusory or unsupported statements to establish good cause….” Order, at p. 1.
So, Genius Baristas and 18Fs, when you seal a whole docket containing dozens of orders theretofore public, because one item in said docket is sealed, come up with the appropriate testimony (sworn) and factual data to support what harm, if any, would occur if each and every other item were not sealed.
And don’t give us boilerplate conclusions.
Thank you, Judge Scholar Pat. I needed that.
Taishoff Law 
If the Sirius file were sealed, we would miss out on some of the Tax Court humor contained therein. For example, the July 14, 2021 order by Judge Urda:
On July 12, 2021, the Commissioner filed a response to brief in support of motion for summary judgment (Doc. 17). It appears that the document is improperly titled. Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s response to brief in support of motion for summary judgment is hereby recharacterized as the Commissioner’s response and brief in opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and to petitioner’s brief in support of motion for summary judgment.
LikeLike
This is to what depths has sunk an honors graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Harvard Law School, and leading IRS Tax Court litigator. Pegasus harnessed to a beer wagon isn’t in it.
LikeLike