That’s the fate Michael Romanovsky, Docket No. 1546-25, filed 2/11/25, is trying to avoid with his motion to seal. Mike filed redactred versions of his papers, and “requests that the Court redact his last name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number from the Petition and Attachment to Petition filed in this case; the redacted versions of these filings reflect petitioner’s request.” Order, at p. 1.

Mike’s concern is not wholly unfounded.

“‘Petitioner seeks this redaction due to the increasing risks associated with widespread data scraping by automated systems that collect and distribute personal  information from public records.’ He argues that the inclusion of this information in the public record ‘presents a significant risk’ of ‘Identity theft and fraud,’ ‘Unsolicited contact and harassment,’ and ‘Loss of personal privacy.'” Id., as my expensive colleagues would say.

A source tells me that data scraping refers to automatically extracting information or data from various sources, not necessarily limited to web or user interface content. The process can involve collecting data from various sources, including databases, documents, spreadsheets, text files, and other structured or unstructured data repositories.  AI is supposedly especially good at this.

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan says Mike complied with the redaction Rule 27(a), and that’s all he gets.

“To determine whether the sealing of any documents is appropriate, we must weigh the public’s interest in access to the documents against the taxpayer’s interests. 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. (Citations omitted).

Mike falls short.