Whenever that is the question in anything but a Section 7623 whistleblower case, the answer is always the same; another question: what are the specific justifications? Generalities don’t o’ercrow Section 7461 and the public’s right to know. Show specific, demonstrable injuries to person or purse, or Tax Court will let it all hang out.

And same will be fair game for the trade press and the blogosphere.

Wherefore Judge Travis A.(“Tag”) Greaves adjures Amgen Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 16017-21, filed 7/26/24, as to both of their motions (the one to unseal pleadings in the HCR credit case and one to unseal the pleadings in their “Due Process” one), to supplement each with “a list of requested redactions with corresponding justifications.” Order, at p. 2.

Amgen wanted only parts of the respective pleadings redacted. But in support of their requests, “P)etitioner improperly filed versions of these pleadings with unagreed redactions. These documents will be stricken, and the Court will order petitioner to file properly redacted documents after ruling on these motions.” Order, at p. 1.

So, after tossing twelve (count ’em, twelve) documents, presumably prepared, reviewed, and submitted by one or more of the seven (count ’em, seven) attorneys from IRS, and twenty-four (count ’em, twenty-four) attorneys for Amgen, Judge Tag Greaves thus catechizes the platoon.

“There is a strong presumption of public access to court records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal judicial records, including exhibits attached to dispositive motions, bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by showing a compelling reason for sealing such records. Id. at 1136. Petitioner has failed to set forth a specific list of the requested redactions and the justification for each redaction.” Order, at p. 1.

Those seeking sealing in their non-blower cases should read and heed, and not complain, if they can’t meet the Foltz standard. Specificity rules.