Judge Jeffrey S. (“Schwer”) Arbeit tells IRS and Newell Brands Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 11897-24, filed 10/16/25 to keep negotiating a protocol to protect the documents and testimony that “‘may’ include ‘sensitive information’ the disclosure of which ‘could’ result in a competitor gaining some “unfair advantage” or simply in general ‘adverse economic damage.’” Order, at p. 4.

Newell asked for a Rule 103(c) blanket covering 25 (count ’em, 25) categories, including 14 that Newell could wildcard in at any time. See Order, at p. 1 for the whole story, too voluminous for me to reprint or attempt to summarize.

Judge Shwer Arbeit lives up to his cognomen, writing a précis of caselaw from Willie Nelson to Microsemi. That the proposed protective order would encompass material upwards of ten (count ’em, ten) years old is also a factor. Old grows cold. See Order, at p. 4.

In short, see Matthew 10:27.

And of course Sections 7458 and 7461 get an airing (public hearings and public evidence), with the saver that discovery materials that never make it to trial get a higher level of protection.

Here’s what IRS offers Newell: “To the extent Petitioner wishes to identify for Respondent specific documents or portions of documents that meet the requirements of Rule 103, Respondent remains willing to review any such proposal. Additionally, to the extent Petitioner identifies specific, concrete examples of documents that Petitioner considers to be trade secrets, e.g., a specific, named patent or process, Respondent is willing to review those examples and, if warranted, agree that documents of the same c haracter should be protected.” Order, at p. 4.

Judge Schwer Arbeit says you can’t say fairer than that. No blanket protective order, go talk among yourselves.