In re Grove-Merritt

Full title: In re: DEVON LORAINE GROVE-MERRITT, Chapter 7, Debtor.

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio

Date published: Sep 2, 2009

Case No. 07-31887 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Sep. 2, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 07-31887.

9-2-2009

In re: DEVON LORAINE GROVE-MERRITT, Chapter 7, Debtor.

Guy Humphrey

I. Introduction

Before the court are three motions filed by Harvey Christophe Lassiter, also known as Christo Lassiter, seeking to seal the "entire record" in two adversary proceedings, certain documents filed in one of those adversary proceedings, and certain documents filed in the estate cases of Devon Loraine Grove-Merritt, now known as Devon Dullaghan, and Joseph H. Moser. In addition, Lassiter has filed motions to strike Dullaghan's and Moser's motions seeking to hold Lassiter in contempt and documents attached to those motions. Lassiter seeks to restrict public access to these records due to their asserted scandalous nature and to stop Dullaghan's and Moser's publication of documents pertaining to Lassiter. Thus, the issues presented are whether such documents contain "scandalous matter" requiring the implementation of the protections under 11 U.S.C. § 107(b)(2) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (BR) 9018 or whether some other basis exists to restrict the public's access.

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that some of the filed exhibits constitute "scandalous" matters under § 107(b)(2) and are subject to protection under BR 9018, while the remainder of the dockets and records does not fall within the scope of § 107(b)(2). Accordingly, the court grants Lassiter's motions to the extent provided in this decision and otherwise denies all relief. The court has restricted public access to the offending exhibits and no further action is necessary.

II. Facts and Procedural Background

A. Facts

Devon Loraine Grove-Merritt aka Devon L. Dullaghan ("Dullaghan") is a debtor with a case in this court. After graduation from law school, she had a romantic relationship with one of her former law professors, Christo Lassiter ("Lassiter"). Lassiter had represented Dullaghan's then husband, Joseph Moser ("Moser"), another debtor with a case in this court, in a military benefits matter at Dullaghan's request. The relationships among Dullaghan, Lassiter and Moser gave rise to the matters litigated in Dullaghan's bankruptcy case and related two adversary proceedings (the "adversary proceedings"), as well as to recent litigation in Moser's bankruptcy case. In addition to being the centerpiece of bankruptcy litigation, these relationships have given rise to a significant litigation among these parties outside this court.¹

1 As a result of filings in this court and the trials of the adversary proceedings described in this decision, the court is aware of the following litigation involving Lassiter, Dullaghan, and Moser or their relationships filed in other courts: 1) Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 04DR28631, captioned Devon L. Moser v. Joseph H. Moser, in which Lassiter participated in at least one hearing; 2) Warren County Common Pleas Court Case No. 05CV63988 captioned Devon Dullaghan and Christo Lassiter v. Joseph Moser; 3) Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Case No. 07CV67718 captioned Christo Lassiter v. Joseph Moser; 4) Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Case No. 08CV73158 captioned by Christo Lassiter v. Joseph Moser and Devon Dullaghan; and 5) Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division Case No. 07-C00733. In addition, Lassiter initiated a separate proceeding in the Hamilton County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Case No. SK0700794, in which he sought a civil protection order or other restraining order against Ronald Dullaghan, Dullaghan's husband; Hamilton County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas Case No. SK0801336 captioned Christo Lassiter v. Devin L. Dullaghan; a proceeding pursued in the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Case No. 07DV3528, in which Dullaghan sought a civil protection order against Lassiter and a criminal proceeding brought by the State of Ohio against Lassiter arising out of disputes between these parties, in Hamilton County Municipal Court Case No. 08CRB43260. These latter matters were dismissed rapidly and most, if not all, of the other state court proceedings were resolved through dismissals or otherwise.

Many of the facts that underlie Lassiter's motions to seal (the "motions") are detailed in prior decisions in the adversary proceedings.² However, the court will set forth some of the pertinent facts that entwine these cases and adversary proceedings (collectively, the "actions") and give rise to the motions.

2 Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt, Case No. 07-31887, Adversary Proceeding No. 07-3215, Doc. 62; and Slone v. Lassiter, Case No. 07-31887, Adversary Proceeding No. 08-3068, Doc. 70.

At all relevant times, Lassiter has been a law professor at the University Of Cincinnati College Of Law ("UC"). Dullaghan graduated from UC in 2002.

In 2003 Dullaghan and her then husband, Moser, purchased a house located in Mason, Ohio (the "Carter Court property"). The couple lived in the Carter Court property until Dullaghan and Moser separated in 2004. Dullaghan continued to live at the Carter Court property following the separation.

During her last semester of law school, Dullaghan requested Lassiter's assistance in a military law matter concerning Moser. Lassiter obliged. Dullaghan also assisted Lassiter in legal matters after graduating from UC, including negotiating a settlement of a personal injury claim and in proofreading legal materials.

In June 2004 Dullaghan filed a complaint with the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, seeking a divorce from Moser. Trial Tr., p. 375 (Adversary Proceeding ("Adv. Pro.") No. 07-3215, Doc. 60). A divorce decree was entered that awarded the Carter Court property to Dullaghan and gave her until August 17, 2005 to refinance that property and remove Moser from any liability that he may have had under a note and mortgage.

Related to their divorce, Moser executed a quitclaim deed transferring his interest in the Carter Court property to Dullaghan in October 2004. Because Dullaghan wanted to retain the Carter Court property but was financially unable to refinance the loan, Lassiter agreed to help and borrowed $140,000 to refinance the property. To support Lassiter's refinancing and prior to the closing, Dullaghan transferred an undivided one-half interest in the Carter Court property to Lassiter. Dullaghan later executed and recorded a quitclaim deed transferring her remaining undivided one-half interest in the Carter Court property to Lassiter.

Dullaghan's and Lassiter's relationship started to deteriorate in 2006 and the relationship ended around August 2006. Dullaghan subsequently moved out of the Carter Court property.

B. Procedural Background

1. The Moser and Dullaghan Estate Cases, Case No. 05-38518 and No. 07-31887

On August 22, 2005 Moser filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case (Case No. 05-38518). The case proceeded unremarkably and Moser was granted a discharge. On May 3, 2007 Dullaghan filed a pro se Chapter 7 petition (Case No. 07-31887) and was also granted a discharge.

2. Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt, Adv. Pro. No. 07-3215

On August 31, 2007 Lassiter commenced an adversary proceeding in Dullaghan's case seeking a determination that Dullaghan owed him a debt for willful and malicious damage to the Carter Court property that was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)³ (the "Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding"). Lassiter alleged that Dullaghan intentionally damaged the Carter Court property to seek vengeance against him for terminating their relationship.

3 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Bankruptcy Code of 1978, as amended (the "Code"), 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, cited hereinafter in this decision as "§ ____".

Dullaghan and Lassiter both filed multiple exhibits which they intended to introduce at trial. On June 27, 2008 Lassiter filed approximately 140 pages of proposed trial exhibits (Adv. Doc. 19) and Dullaghan filed her exhibits on July 30, 2008 (Adv. Docs. 22 & 23). Due to the volume of all the exhibits filed in the actions, including the exhibits filed in the Lassiter v. Grove Merritt adversary proceeding, all the exhibits referenced in this decision are set forth in the Appendix in the order in which they appear in this decision.

The trial of the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding was held in October 2008. The court admitted Dullaghan's exhibits, B-J and M-P, without objection. Dullaghan did not introduce Exhibits A and K. She withdrew Exhibit A at the conclusion of the trial. The court denied admission of Dullaghan's Exhibit L. Trial Tr. pp. 657-59 (Adv. Doc. 60). Prior to the trial, the court had restricted from public access Dullaghan's Exhibit G, approximately 125 pages of emails, due to the personal content of some emails and numerous personal identifiers in those emails. Lassiter requested that the last 5 pages of Dullaghan's Exhibit G continue to be restricted from public access. The court admitted Lassiter's Exhibits 1-11, 13-14, 17-23, 25, 27-28, and 32-33 without objection and Exhibits 12, 15, and 16 over Dullaghan's objection. Lassiter withdrew Exhibit 24. The court denied admission of Exhibit 26 and there were no Exhibits numbered 29-31. Dullaghan moved to restrict public access to Exhibits 15 and 16. Because those filings concerned a minor child and records pertaining to the custody and visitation issues are confidential, the court granted Dullaghan's motion without objection. Trial Tr. pp. 663-676 (Adv. Doc. 60).

On March 31, 2009 the court issued a decision and order finding that any debt owed by Dullaghan to Lassiter was not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6). (Adv. Docs. 62 & 63).

3. Slone v. Lassiter, Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068

On March 6, 2008 Ruth A. Slone, the Chapter 7 trustee for Dullaghan's bankruptcy case (the "Trustee"), filed an adversary proceeding (the "Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceeding") against Lassiter seeking to avoid and recover, as fraudulent conveyances under Ohio's version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and the Bankruptcy Code, Dullaghan's transfers of her interest in the Carter Court property to Lassiter. The Trustee alleged that the transfers were made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud her creditors and not in exchange for reasonably equivalent value. This adversary proceeding was tried in January 2009.

On December 30, 2008 the Trustee and Lassiter filed multiple exhibits which they intended to introduce at the trial. See Appendix, pp. 2-4.

At trial, all but the Trustee's Exhibits 4, 10-19, and 22 were admitted without objection. Trial Tr. 244-246 (Adv. Doc. 52). All of Lassiter's exhibits were admitted without objection. Trial Tr. p. 296 (Adv. Doc. 52).

On June 2, 2009 the court issued a decision and order granting in part and denying in part the relief sought by the Trustee, allowing the trustee to avoid Dullaghan's transfer of her remaining equity in her one-half interest in the Carter Court property to Lassiter as a fraudulent conveyance. (Adv. Doc. 70).

4. The Stay and Discharge Injunction Motions

In early February 2009 Dullaghan and Moser, acting pro se, filed motions seeking to hold Lassiter in contempt for violating the bankruptcy stay in Dullaghan's case, Moser's and Dullaghan's discharges provided by § 727, and their discharge injunctions provided by § 524 (the "stay and discharge injunction motions"). See Case No. 05-38518 (Doc. 19) and Case No. 07-31887 (Doc. 44). Those motions assert that Lassiter violated Dullaghan's bankruptcy stay and continues to violate Dullaghan's and Moser's discharges by pursuing discharged prepetition obligations, in particular by pursuing a state court action in the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court and engaging in other unauthorized conduct.⁴

4 Those motions also requested an order from this court finding Lassiter to be a "vexatious litigator" under state law, enjoining him from attempting to collect prepetition debts, and imposing sanctions on him for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Through an oral decision rendered on June 23, 2009 and orders entered on the dockets on June 25, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims or remedies sought by Dullaghan and Moser in their stay and discharge injunction motions except for those associated with the alleged violations of 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a) and 524. See Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 43 and Case No. 07-31887, Doc. 90.

Dullaghan and Moser appended various exhibits to the stay and discharge injunction motions as specifically listed on pages 4-5 of the Appendix. On June 15, 22 and 23, 2009 they filed a joint witness and exhibit list and a set of joint proposed exhibits for the hearing on their stay and discharge injunction motions, which in part duplicated the documents attached to their motions but also included new documents. Appendix, p. 5.

On April 7, 2009 in the Dullaghan's estate case only, Lassiter had filed several proposed exhibits for the anticipated hearing on the stay and discharge injunction motions (Doc. 50). On June 18, 2009 he filed an amended exhibit list and exhibits for that hearing (Docs. 79 & 80). See also Appendix pp. 6-7.

On June 23, 2009 the court conducted a telephonic pre-hearing conference concerning the stay and discharge motions. The court rendered an oral decision limiting the issues to be heard. This limitation resulted in the narrowing of the evidence that the parties will be able to introduce at the hearing, scheduled for September 2009. The parties acknowledged that many of their originally proposed exhibits were not relevant and agreed to withdraw many of the proposed exhibits.

5. The Motions To Seal

Lassiter has filed three motions seeking to seal materials filed in the actions. These motions have not been opposed.

The Motion to Seal in Slone v. Lassiter,Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068. On February 4, 2009 Lassiter filed his original Motion to Seal in the Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceeding (Adv. Doc. 58), and his Second Amended Motion to Seal Plaintiff's Exhibits (11-15) and (17-22) on March 2, 2009 (Adv. Doc. 68). This motion states that "Plaintiff's Exhibits (11)-(15) and (17)-(22) contain scandalous material which embarrass, humiliate, and otherwise holds Lassiter up to ridicule." Motion, ¶ 4. The motion concludes by stating that: "For the same reasons articulated in his objection to the use of this [sic] documents in the Plaintiff's case as well as their ultimate admission into evidence, Lassiter intended to request that Plaintiff's Exhibits (11)-(15) and (17)-(22) be sealed (as this Court similarly acted on behalf of Dullaghan), but neglected to do so by oversight.⁵ Lassiter now seeks to correct for that omission by respectfully requesting that these exhibits be sealed." Motion, ¶ 6.

5 Lassiter seeks to seal Exhibits 11-15 and 17-22 from the Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceeding for the same reasons that he objected to their use and admission at trial (Motion, ¶ 6). First, Lassiter objected to the admission of Exhibits 11-15 and 17-19 based upon the allegation that Dullaghan was his attorney with respect to certain matters and that these documents were "maintained in his attorney-client file" by Dullaghan and, therefore, were confidential or privileged documents which could not be used in the trial. Trial Tr. pp. 52-56, 65-68, and 243-44 (Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Adv. Doc. 52). Second, Lassiter objected to the admission of Exhibits 12, 19, 22 on the grounds that these exhibits, by referencing the "to/from" line at the top of the e-mail, "makes it clear that they were obtained from a attorney disciplinary grievance procedure which had been dismissed and so, therefore, violates confidentiality of a member of the bar, namely myself." Trial Tr. p. 244 (Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Adv. Doc. 52). See also Trial Tr. pp. 53-56 and 80-81 (Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. 50). As noted below, § 107 constitutes the sole basis for sealing documents filed in bankruptcy court. Accordingly, regardless of the bases for the court's admission of those exhibits and the denial of Lassiter's objections to the admission of those exhibits, Lassiter's arguments made at trial concerning the exclusion of the exhibits from evidence do not provide the court with a basis to restrict the public's access to those documents once they are filed in a bankruptcy case.

The Motion To Seal in In re Grove-Merritt,Case No. 07-31887. On April 15, 2009 Lassiter filed his Defendant's Amended Motion To Seal Entire Record in AP 07-3215, AP 08-3068, and Filings and Exhibits Pursuant To Debtor's Amended Motion in Dullaghan's estate case. Lassiter requests the court to "seal the entire record AP 07-3215 and AP 08-3068 as well as the filings and exhibits of both parties pursuant to Debtor's amended motion due to their scandalous content." Case No. 07-31887, Doc. No. 60, ¶ 6. Lassiter articulates the basis for his request in the following manner:

In AP 07-3215, the AP 08-3068, and now Debtor's amended motion for contempt general, the Debtor has demonstrated a pattern to publicize as much scandalous information pertaining to Lassiter as opposing parties have on hand in an effort to make as much of Lassiter's private life a public record as is possible, and without regard for relevance to the legitimate issues before the Court.

Case No. 07-31887, Doc. 60, ¶ 2.

The Motion To Seal in In re Moser,Case No. 05-38518. On April 15, 2009 Lassiter filed his Defendant's Amended Motion to Seal the Record in Moser's estate case in which he requests the court to "seal the entire record of proceedings related to Debtor's [Motion to Find Harvey Lassiter in Contempt For Stay Violations]." Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 30, ¶ 5. He explains the basis for his request as follows:

Debtor's clear intent is to publicize as much of Lassiter's private life as he can to embarrass, humiliate and to set up the defense of prior publication in state court proceedings brought to address Debtor's conversion of Lassiter's property and invasion of Lassiter's privacy. This is an illegitimate reason for making a public record.

Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 30, ¶ 3.

6. The Motions To Strike

On April 13, 2009 Lassiter filed motions to strike the stay and discharge injunction motions and the exhibits attached to those motions. In these motions to strike, Lassiter stated that:

6. Dullaghan's voluminous exhibits are a deliberate effort to improperly influence this Court by abusing the motion/complaint process to put before this Court voluminous documents that were related to the adversary proceedings styled and Adv. No. 07-03215 and Adv. No. 08-3068, but for which no admission was sought.

7. Dullaghan's Exhibits attached to her motion for contempt filed 2-17- 09 are a deliberative effort to make as much of Lassiter's private life a public record as she possibly can.

8. By allowing Dullaghan to publish her Exhibits and discussion of same a public record, this Court is making it impossible for Lassiter to obtain the relief to which he ultimately seeks.

9. Dullaghan's Exhibits (C)-(D) are efforts at negotiation and prohibited from admission under Rule 410 of the Fed.R.Evid.

10. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests the Court to strike Debtor's amended motion for contempt/complaint or in the alternative to strike Debtor's's Exhibits (C)-(D) and pages of her amended motion for contempt/complaint discussing same at 5-6.

See Case No. 07-31887, Docs. 56 & 59. Lassiter's motion to strike in the Moser case mirrored the one he filed in Dullaghan's case. See Case No. 05-38518, Docs. 26 & 29.

III. Legal Analysis

A. Jurisdiction

The court has jurisdiction over these matters and proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334, and the standing General Order of Reference in this District. These are core proceedings by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

B. 11 U.S.C. § 107 and Bankruptcy Rule 9018; Standards and Burdens Under Those Provisions

1. 11 U.S.C. § 107 and Bankruptcy Rule 9018

Section 107 constitutes the primary statute governing public access to records filed in bankruptcy cases and a bankruptcy court's ability to seal those records. It provides in pertinent part:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), of this section and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case under this title and the dockets of a bankruptcy court are public records and open to examination by an entity at reasonable times without charge.

(b) On request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall, and on the bankruptcy court's own motion, the bankruptcy court may

(1) protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information; or

(2) protect a person with respect to scandalous or defamatory matter contained in a paper filed in a case under this title.

11 U.S.C. § 107(a) & (b). Section 107 is implemented through BR 9018 which provides that:

On motion or on its own initiative, with or without notice, the court may make any order which justice requires (1) to protect the estate or any entity in respect of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, (2) to protect any entity against scandalous or defamatory matter contained in any paper filed in a case under the Code, or (3) to protect governmental matters that are made confidential by statute or regulation. If an order is entered under this rule without notice, any entity affected thereby may move to vacate or modify the order, and after a hearing on notice the court shall determine the motion.

Thus, together, § 107 and BR 9018 allow a party in interest to seek protection of confidential commercial information and scandalous or defamatory materials in bankruptcy records.⁶ If one of the exceptions of § 107(b) is available and a party in interest seeks protection under that provision, the court does not have any discretion, but shall provide such protection. In re Food Mgmt. Group, LLC, 359 B.R. 543, 554 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007); Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Defendants Named Under Seal (In re Phar-Mor, Inc.), 191 B.R. 675, 679 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1995) and In re Barney's, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 707 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996).

6 Although the common law recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records, particularly court records, and specific exceptions to those rights (See Gitto v. Worchester Telegram & Gazette Corp. (In re Gitto Global Corp.), 422 F.3d 1, 6-8 (1st Cir. 2005); Neal v. The Kansas City Star (In re Neal), 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006); and Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)), § 107 has codified those principles and now provides the sole basis for sealing or restricting access to documents filed in the bankruptcy courts. Neal, 461 F.3d at 1053; Gitto, 422 F.3d at 6-8; and Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Defendants Named Under Seal (In re Phar-Mor, Inc.), 191 B.R. 675, 679 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1995). Accordingly, Lassiter's arguments in the Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceeding trial concerning the exclusion of certain of the Trustee's exhibits from evidence do not provide the court with a basis to restrict the public's access to those documents once they are filed with the bankruptcy court and Lassiter's motions to seal the records can only be determined within the confines of § 107.

2. Burden of Proof

The plain language of § 107(a) mandates that absent an exception under subsection (b) or (c), any paper filed in a bankruptcy case and the dockets of bankruptcy courts be a public record open to examination at reasonable times.⁷See Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 554. Open access of public records has heightened emphasis in the bankruptcy courts. Id. at 553 ("The public interest in openness of court proceedings is at its zenith when issues concerning the integrity and transparency of bankruptcy court proceedings are involved . . . ."). As stated in In re Bell & Beckwith, 44 B.R. 661, 664 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984):

7 The legislative history indicates that Congress intended that "docket" include "claims dockets, adversary proceedings dockets, the docket of a case, and all papers filed in a case". Norton Bankruptcy Law & Practice 3d, § 15:1; and H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 317 to 318 (1977); S. Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 30 (1978).

Public scrutiny is the means by which the persons for whom the system is to benefit are able to insure its integrity and protect their rights. This policy of open inspection, established in the Bankruptcy Code itself, is fundamental to the operation of the bankruptcy system and is the best means of avoiding any suggestion of impropriety that might or could be raised. See also Gitto v. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. (In re Gitto Global Corp.), 422 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2005); Ferm v. United States Trustee (In re Crawford), 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 1999); In re Analytical Sys., Inc., 83 B.R. 833, 834-35 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1987) ("The basic thrust of [the reported decisions under § 107] is to safeguard the policy of the public's right of access to court records.") and William T. Bodoh & Michelle M. Morgan, Protective Orders in the Bankruptcy Court: The Congressional Mandate of Bankruptcy Code Section 107 and Its Constitutional Implications, 24 Hastings Const. L.Q. 67 (1996). Accordingly, "[i]n light of the strong presumption of public access to court documents, `a judge must carefully and skeptically review sealing requests to insure that there really is an extraordinary circumstance or compelling need to seal court records." Chase v. Chase (In re Chase), 2008 WL 2945997, at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2008) (unreported), citing Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 554. See also In re Fibermark, Inc., 330 B.R. 480, 504-05 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2005).

Any party in interest seeking to restrict public access to bankruptcy court records has the burden to establish "extraordinary circumstances and compelling need to obtain protection." Chase, 2008 WL 2945997, *6 . See also Neal v. The Kansas City Star (In re Neal), 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006) and Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 679. The exceptions to public access are construed narrowly. Ferm, 194 F.3d at 960, fn. 8. See also Analytical Sys., 83 B.R. at 835 ("Based on Section 107 and the strong precedent of federal case law, this court concludes that sealing judicial records is appropriate only in very limited situations.").

3. Remedies Available to Protect Parties In Interest

Neither § 107 nor BR 9018 provide the remedy to implement § 107. Rather, BR 9018 provides that "the court may make any order which justice requires . . . to protect any entity against scandalous or defamatory matter contained in any paper filed in a case." Thus, the court has discretion to determine what remedy is appropriate. Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 679. However, because subsection (b) is an exception to the overriding principle of open access to the courts, any remedy should be tailored as narrowly as possible. See In re Nunn, 49 B.R. 963, 964 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2005) ("Furthermore, for the Court to enter a protective order, limitation of access must not only be an appropriately responsive remedy, but also, there can be no less drastic alternative available.") and In re EPIC Assocs. V, 54 B.R. 445, 450 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1985) citing In re Knight Publishing Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) ("Less restrictive alternatives to the closure order must be considered and rejected.").

Remedies courts have used under § 107 under circumstances similar to the ones in the actions include: restricting access to the document (Nunn, 49 B.R. at 964); ordering withdrawal of the document (Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 680); ordering the redaction of the offending information (see Krause v. Rhodes, 671 F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1982); Fibermark, 330 B.R. at 511); sealing of part of the record, but allowing persons having "a legitimate interest in the information" to review the information upon granting of a motion seeking permission to review the information, and if no objection to such motion is filed (Nunn, 49 B.R. at 963); inserting a cautionary ledger on each page of an examiner's report that the report only contained the examiner's opinions and not those of the court (Fibermark, 330 B.R. at 509); and sealing part of the court record for a limited period of time (EPIC, 54 B.R. at 450). This court has not found any cases which restrict the public's access to the entire record of a bankruptcy case or an adversary proceeding under § 107 or BR 9018.⁸

8 The only exception is a decision in which the complaint was the only item filed in the adversary proceeding and the court ordered it withdrawn. Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Defendants Named Under Seal (In re Phar-Mor, Inc.), 191 B.R. 675, 680 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1995).

4. What is "Scandalous" Under § 107(b)(2)?

Neither § 107 nor any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define "scandalous." Further, despite the existence of case law discussing scandalous matter within the context of § 107(b)(2), no prevailing standard exists for determining what is scandalous under that provision. However, some general principles and factors can be discerned.

Courts have used various definitions of scandalous. Some courts have looked to Black's Law Dictionary which defines "scandalous" as: "A matter that is both grossly disgraceful (or defamatory) and irrelevant to the action or defense." Black's Law Dictionary 1372 (8th ed. 2004). See Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 558-59. Other courts have turned to interpretations of scandalous under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) which provides that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading . . . any . . . scandalous matter." See Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 557 and Hope v. Pearson, 38 B.R. 423, 424-25 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984).

The vast majority of bankruptcy adversary proceedings and contested matters, including the adversary proceedings and contested matters in Dullaghan's and Moser's cases, are tried before the bench without a jury. Courts that have analyzed" scandalous" within the framework of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) have noted that since a motion to strike scandalous materials is in part intended to prevent prejudice to the party before a jury, the need to strike is lessened when the matter is to be tried to a judge only. Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 558.

The recent decisions under § 107(b)(2) reflect a trend to avoid defining "scandalous" and "defamatory" and instead adopt a "contextual" approach to determining whether materials are scandalous or defamatory. See Neal, 461 F.3d at 1052-53; Gitto, 422 F.3d at 13 and Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 679. The contextual approach involves analyzing the specific facts to determine if materials are scandalous or defamatory within the context of the case. Bankruptcy courts have discretion in this determination. Fibermark, 330 B.R. at 506 and Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 679.

Factors courts have assessed in determining whether materials are scandalous or defamatory and should be sealed include: a) the purpose for which the filer filed the documents in question and their relevance (Neal, 461 F.3d at 1054; Gitto, 422 F.3d at 13-14 and Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 558-59); b) the impact that the materials sought to be restricted from public access would have on the movant's reputation (Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 679 and In re Sherman-Noyes & Prairie Apartments Real Estate Inv. P'ship, 59 B.R. 905, 909 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986); c) the specificity and volume of the allegations (Sherman-Noyes, 59 B.R. at 909) ("the allegations made . . . are so vague and so grossly voluminous as to tax the credulity of anyone examining the files")); d) whether the nonmoving parties will have the opportunity to respond to or "test the merits" of the disputed allegations or materials (Food Mgmt, 359 B.R. at 557); e) whether the information or facts set forth in the materials are already contained in or derived from public records (Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 565; In reAlterra Healthcare Corp., 353 B.R. 66, 77 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006); and Chase, 2008 WL 2945997, *7; and f) the timing involved in seeking to restrict public access to the material and, particularly, whether there has been a delay in seeking protection from the allegedly harmful information (Alterra, 353 B.R. at 77 ("The Reorganized Debtor's concern that competitors may use the allegations contained in the tort claims in their marketing material to attract its customers does not support keeping the settlement agreements sealed because all the facts relating to the injuries (except the dollar amount of the settlements) are already a matter of public record. Moreover, three prior settlements were not sealed.").

In determining the impact that material alleged to be scandalous or defamatory would have on the person's reputation, courts look at "whether a reasonable person could alter their opinion of Defendants based on the statements therein, taking those statements in the context in which they appear." Neal, 461 F.3d at 1054, citing Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 679. However, potential injury to one's reputation is not an adequate basis to seal a document. Neal, 461 F.3d at 1054 and Gitto, 422 F.3d at 11. Nor is the fact that the filings are embarrassing to the moving party "a sufficient basis to justify sealing court records in the face of the express and important policy of public access to court records." Analytical Sys., 83 B.R. at 836 and Fibermark, 330 B.R. at 508. In discussing the defamatory prong of § 107(b)(2), the G/tto court noted that extending the protection of subsection (b)(2) to any material tending to harm a person's reputation "would significantly curtail the public's access" to bankruptcy court records and would, in essence, provide for an exception that could swallow the general rule that these records are public. Gitto, 422 F.3d at 9.⁹ Thus, something more than material having a tendency to harm a person's reputation is required to meet the (b)(2) exception for scandalous material.¹⁰

9 This decision notes that many items filed in bankruptcy cases, such as adversary complaints pursuing "fraudulent" transfers could have a tendency to harm a person's reputation but would not trigger the protections of § 107. See also Hope v. Pearson, 38 B.R. 423, 425 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). To be sure, a bankruptcy filing itself could have a tendency to harm the debtor's reputation but would not support sealing the record of the debtor.

10 The Gitto decision decided the case based on the "defamatory" prong of § 107(b)(2) because the movants abandoned their argument under the "scandalous" prong. Accordingly, Gitto is of limited value in determining what is "scandalous" under § 107(b)(2).

Matters that are relevant to the proceeding or contested matter will generally not be restricted from public access even if they are offensive to the movant. Id. at 12-13; Food Mgmt, 359 B.R. at 558 and Hope, 38 B.R. at 425. In addition, facts, allegations, or materials that already are part of the public record or derived from public records cannot be sealed and cannot be characterized as scandalous. Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 565; Chase, 2008 WL 2945997, *7.

C Application of § 107 and BR 9018 to the Motions to Seal and Motions To Strike

1. Introduction

Although Lassiter's motions to seal were unopposed, this court has an obligation to determine whether the relief sought is appropriate, particularly in light of the "profound interest of the public in access to all court records." In re Kunkel, 2008 WL 783379, *3 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2008) ("Bankruptcy courts should not be rubber-stamps for motions, even if no opposition has been raised.").

As noted, § 107(b)(2) protects "a person with respect to scandalous or defamatory matter contained in a paper filed in a case." Lassiter has not asserted that any of the materials in the actions are defamatory, but has contended that they" contain scandalous material which embarrass, humiliate, and otherwise holds Lassiter up to ridicule." Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. 68, ¶ 4; Case No. 07-31887, Doc. 60, ¶ 2; and Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 30. Thus, the issues with respect to the motions are: a) whether the materials in the actions contain "scandalous matter" as that term is used in § 107(b)(2) and b) if so, what the appropriate remedy is to protect Lassiter from any injury that could result from public access to those materials.

This court is adopting the contextual approach to determining whether materials filed with the court are scandalous. See Neal, 461 F.3d at 1052-53; Gitto, 422 F.3d at 13 and Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. at 679. Applying the contextual approach, the court finds that some of the documents are scandalous, but most of the documents and records in the actions are not scandalous under § 107(b)(2).

Lassiter has requested that all of the records for the adversary proceedings and all of the records which pertain to the stay and discharge injunction motions be sealed. However, such a sweeping response is not appropriate and, except possibly only in the rarest of circumstances, would never be. Section 107 does not provide for the whole-scale sealing of bankruptcy records, but only authorizes the court to protect entities and persons in very limited circumstances related to 1) "a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information" or 2) "scandalous or defamatory matter contained in a paper filed in a case." 11 U.S.C. § 107(b). As noted, any remedy triggered by the protections of § 107 must be tailored to be as narrow as possible. See Nunn, 49 B.R. at 964 and EPIC, 54 B.R. at 450. This court cannot impose a blanket restriction on the adversary proceedings or other filings in the cases, but must analyze the particular papers filed in the actions to determine whether they contain scandalous matter.

2. Analysis of the Context of the Filings In the Dullaghan and Moser Actions

The court will first analyze the different factors in determining whether any material in the dockets or records is scandalous as applied to all of the filings in the actions in general. It will then address the context in which the particular documents that Lassiter has singled out have been filed to determine if they are scandalous. Finally, the court will turn its attention to other documents that the court finds scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and, accordingly, for which Lassiter and other persons are entitled to protection under § 107 and BR 9018.

3. Analysis of the Filings in the Cases and Adversary Proceedings in General

For the following reasons, the court finds that most of the filings, documents, and materials on the dockets and in the records for the actions are not scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and, therefore, shall remain public records.

The purpose of the filings and relevance of the filings. The principal thrust of Lassiter's argument is that these filings were made for an improper purpose. In particular, Lassiter asserts that Dullaghan filed these materials to embarrass and humiliate him because he terminated their relationship or to retaliate for the disposition of the custody dispute relating to their minor child and that Moser filed these materials out of spite. See Adv. Pro. No. 07-3215, Docs. 1 & 19 (Exh. 14); Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. No. 68, ¶ 4; Case No. 07-31887, Docs. 45, 52, 59, and 60; and Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 30. Lassiter also argues that an additional improper reason for Dullaghan's and Moser's filings is to "publish" them in a public forum in order to provide a defense to Lassiter's defamation claims against Dullaghan and Moser in the Warren County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. See Case No. 07-31887, Doc. 59, ¶ 8; and Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 26, ¶ 6.

In determining whether the allegations in an adversary complaint were scandalous, a decision focused on the relevance and purpose of these allegations and noted that "[b]ecause litigants frequently assign bad motives to allegations made by their adversaries, the improper purpose test needs to be applied carefully, hewing closely to the traditional standards for protecting against scandalous matter." Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 559. The court relied on Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), one of the leading decisions setting forth the parameters of the common law doctrine of public access to court records and describing the standard for striking or sealing scandalous materials in the following manner:

the common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records are not `used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal' through the publication of `the painful and sometimes disgusting details of a divorce case' . . . [or] to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption . . . or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing . . . .

Food Mgmt. Group, 359 B.R. at 559, quoting Nixon at 435 U.S. at 598. In finding the allegations at issue not scandalous, the court observed that they were "relevant and not asserted for an improper purpose" and that most of the alleged facts were contained in documents "already part of the public record." Id. at 565.

Based on the trials and hearings in connection with which the filings were made and the exhibits introduced, the court finds that the non-exhibit filings — pleadings, motions, and briefs — were filed for the proper purpose of seeking appropriate relief or in opposition to such relief.¹¹ Except for those specific exhibits described below in this decision, the court further determines that all the other exhibits introduced by the parties had some relevance to the issues tried and were not filed just to harass, embarrass, or humiliate Lassiter or any other person. As noted above, matters that are relevant to the determination of the issues before the court are not scandalous. See Gitto, 422 F.3d at 12-13; Food Mgmt, 359 B.R. at 558 and Hope, 38 B.R. at 425.

11 This determination applies to Lassiter's complaint and briefs concerning the asserted nondischargeability of the debt he claimed that Dullaghan owed him for damages to the Carter Court property and Dullaghan's responses to those filings; the trustee's complaint, motions, and filings pursuing the fraudulent conveyance claims against Lassiter and Lassiter's responses to those filings; and Moser's and Dullaghan's stay and discharge injunction motions and Lassiter's responses to those motions.

The impact that the materials would have on Lassiter's reputation. Lassiter asserts that he needs the protection of § 107 because he "is a Professor of Law and Criminal Justice and a single father of three children with a need to depart litigation in this court with some reputation in tact [sic]." The court finds that some of the materials in the actions could harm Lassiter's reputation as a professor of law and that some of those documents could be embarrassing to a person in his position. However, the fact that Lassiter is a professor at a public institution does not give this court any more ability to protect him than any other party. If anything, such fact weighs in favor of maintaining the openness of the records.¹²

12 See In re Bell & Beckwith, 44 B.R. 661, 664 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1984); Gitto v. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. (In re Gitto Global Corp.), 422 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2005); See Ferm v. United States Trustee (In re Crawford), 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 1999); and In re Analytical Sys., Inc., 83 B.R. 833, 834-35 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1987).

Potential injury to one's reputation alone is insufficient to seal a document. Neal, 461 F.3d at 1054; Gitto, 422 F.3d at 11. Nor is the fact that the filings are embarrassing "a sufficient basis to justify sealing court records in the face of the express and important policy of public access to court records." Analytical Sys., 83 B.R. at 836. Thus, the fact that the materials in the files are embarrassing and potentially could harm Lassiter's reputation does not warrant sealing those materials.

The Phar-Mor decision involved an adversary complaint against a general partner and limited partners in which allegations of serious misdeeds committed solely by the general partner would have unnecessarily and unfairly impugned the innocent and respected limited partners who did not voluntarily subject themselves to the litigation and could have cast unwarranted negative aspersions upon those defendants if the adversary complaint had been published. Phar-Mor, 191 B.R. 675. Because of those risks, the defendants took prompt action to protect their interests by ensuring that the complaint was sealed at or near the time of filing. See Id. at 677.

The facts surrounding Lassiter's requests to seal the records of the actions stand in stark contrast to the facts in Phar-Mor. Contrary to the Phar-Mor defendants, Lassiter inserted himself into Dullaghan's bankruptcy case by filing the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding. Lassiter filed that adversary proceeding knowing that he was a law professor at a public university and fully cognizant of the background of his soured relationship with Dullaghan. Further, the allegations made by Lassiter in the complaint and the documents attached to that complaint were nothing short of provocative. While such facts do not justify a defendant's abuse of the judicial process and publication of scandalous, defamatory, or other inappropriate material, a litigant who chooses to avail himself of the legal process must bear the risks inherent to that process, such as providing a forum for public access to information that otherwise would remain private. Those risks only multiply when personal relationships are involved. The litigation among Dullaghan, Lassiter and Moser involves personal and emotionally charged circumstances and estranged relationships. This court cannot change the impact that this reality has on the litigation.

Accordingly, with the exceptions noted below, the court finds that any potential harm to Lassiter's reputation or embarrassment to him does not justify restricting any such documents from public access.

The specificity and volume of the allegations. The court finds that the allegations and materials filed by all of the parties in the actions, including Lassiter, are so "grossly voluminous as to tax the credulity of anyone examining the files." See Commodore Corp., 70 B.R. at 546 and Sherman-Noyes, 59 B.R. at 909. As can be gleaned from the facts set forth above or a review of the filings in the actions, the allegations and alleged supporting evidence that the parties have filed seem limitless. A review of these materials unmistakably suggests that they have been asserted and filed in an emotionally laden context. Neither Dullaghan nor Moser are solely to blame for this volume of filings. Lassiter also has contributed to this state of affairs. Thus, the sheer volume and the general nature of the parties' allegations, cross allegations and filings weights against a finding that the materials filed in the actions are scandalous for purposes of § 107.

Whether Lassiter will or has had the opportunity to respond to or "test the merits" of the disputed allegations or materials.

To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Newton's Third Law of Motion, translated from the Principia's Latin.

The records in these actions are a metaphor for Sir Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion. They reveal that Lassiter, Dullaghan, and Moser had the opportunity to respond to each other's allegations and filings and have taken full advantage of those opportunities by responding to each other's attacks with equal force, volume and in a like manner. To the extent that any of these individuals can be accused of filing "scandalous" materials, each of them is equally culpable.

Whether the materials or facts set forth in the materials are already contained in public records or derived from public records. Many of the exhibits filed in the actions are public records, including records from: a) this court (See Adv. Pro. No. 07-3215, Trial Exhs. 21 & 25 and Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Trial Exh. 19); b) other public records, including court filings from the Warren and Hamilton County, Ohio courts (See Case No. 07-31887, Doc. 79 (Exhs. A-H, O, & Q-V) and Doc. 83 (Exhs. 3, 4, 24, 25, & 28), Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 19 (Exhs. B, F, G, H, I, and K), Adv. Pro. No. 07-3215, Doc. 19 (Exhs. 5-8, 17, 19, 20, & 31), and Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. 28 (Exhs. 5, 15, 16, & 20) (without considering the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division records which may or may not be open public records); c) the Warren County Auditor's, Recorder's, and Treasurer's records (See Adv. Pro. No. 07-3215, Trial Exhs. 1-2, 23, & 24) and Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. 28 (Exhs. 1-2, 6, 8, 12, & 23) and Doc. 31 (Exhs. 3, 5-7, & 9); and d) police reports (Adv. Pro. No. 07-3215, Doc. 19 (Exh. 10) and Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. 28 (Exh. 10) and Doc. 31 (Exh. 1-4)). Therefore, these records cannot be restricted from public access by this court. See Food Mgmt Group, 359 B.R. at 565 and Chase, 2008 WL 2945997, *7.

The timing of the filing of the motions to seal — Was the relief sought contemporaneously with the appearance of the documents on the docket? The timing of the filing of Lassiter's motions to seal relating to the adversary proceedings is significant.

Dullaghan filed her proposed trial exhibits for the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding on July 30, 2008. That adversary proceeding was tried in October 2008. Lassiter did not file a motion to seal any of the records of that adversary proceeding. However, on April 13, 2009, eight and one-half months after the filing of Dullaghan's exhibits and almost six months after the trial, Lassiter filed a motion to seal the records of that adversary proceeding in Dullaghan's estate case. Case No. 07-31887, Doc. 57. Putting aside whether the motion should have been filed in the adversary proceeding, the delay in seeking that relief casts a cloud of doubt over whether the court should restrict the public's access to those records.

In the Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceeding, the trustee filed her exhibits on December 30, 2008. The adversary was tried on January 13 and 15, 2009, and Lassiter filed his motion to seal the Trustee's Exhibits 11-15, 17-20, and 22 on February 4, 2009. Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. No. 58. Again, Lassiter waited until April 13, 2009 to file his motion to restrict public access to the entire record of that adversary proceeding. Case No. 07-31887, Doc. 57. The motion regarding the trustee's exhibits was contemporaneous with the filing of those exhibits. However, the timing of the April 13th motion to seal the records of Slonev. Lassiter adversary proceeding also casts a cloud of doubt over whether the court should restrict the public's access to the additional records sought to be sealed. Lassiter did file his motion to seal relating to the stay and discharge injunction motions contemporaneously with the filing of the documents which Lassiter seeks to seal. Case No. 07- 31887, Doc. 57.

Accordingly, the court finds that, even if it could restrict the public's access to the records of the adversary proceedings under § 107, Lassiter's motion seeking to seal the records in the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt and Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceedings was not timely. Conversely, Lassiter's motions regarding the stay and discharge injunction motions (Case No. 07-31877, Docs. 44 & 83 and Case No. 05-38518, Docs. 19 & 41) and regarding the Trustee's Exhibits 11-15, 17-20, and 22 in Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068 was timely. Yet, for the reasons previously discussed, the court finds that many of the documents implicated in Lassiter's timely filed motions should not be restricted from public access.

4. Particular Documents in the Actions Singled Out By Lassiter or Otherwise Found by the Court to be "Scandalous" Under § 107(b)(2)

Lassiter has specified certain documents as scandalous. Despite its determination that most of the filings in the actions are not scandalous under § 107(b)(2), the court finds that certain documents are scandalous under the contextual approach and, therefore, Lassiter and other persons are entitled to protection under § 107 and BR 9018 from the harm that could arise. As enumerated below, the court has restricted access to those documents enabling only the parties and their counsel access.

Exhibits Related to the Lassiter v. Grove-Merrittadversary proceeding. Lassiter did not object to the introduction of any of Dullaghan's exhibits in the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding except for Exhibit L. See Trial Tr. pp. 657-59 (Adv. Pro. No. 07-3215, Doc. 60). Exhibit L is a letter from the University of Cincinnati to Dullaghan that the court did not admit because it was not relevant and the issues discussed in it were inflammatory and could potentially harm Lassiter's reputation. The court determines this document is scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and is restricting it from public access.

Dullaghan's Exhibit G admitted at the trial of the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding consists of approximately 125 pages of personal email correspondence between Dullaghan and Lassiter containing numerous references to the names of Dullaghan's and Lassiter's minor children and personal communications between Dullaghan and Lassiter which are not of public interest. As the Supreme Court remarked in defining the limits of the common law right of the public to inspect and copy judicial records and documents:

It is uncontested, however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. For example, the common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records are not "used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal" through the publication of "the painful and sometimes disgusting details of a divorce case."

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (citations omitted). While Dullaghan and Lassiter were not married, the details contained in the email correspondence in Exhibit G fall within the category of documents described above in the Nixon decision. Accordingly, the court finds that this exhibit should continue to be restricted from public access.

Similarly, for the same reasons as Dullaghan's Exhibit G, Lassiter's Exhibits 15 and 16, the Guardian Ad Litem's Report and the Warren County Children Services' Home Inspection Report, relating to state law issues concerning Dullaghan's and Lassiter's minor child, shall remain restricted from public access. Those documents also contain a number of references to personal identifiers related to Lassiter's and Dullaghan's minor children and other private information. Those documents were restricted from public access at the time of trial with the consent of both parties.

Exhibits Related to the Slone v. Lassiteradversary proceeding. Lassiter objected to the following exhibits introduced by the Trustee in the Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceeding and nonetheless admitted at trial: Exhibits 4, 10, 11-15, and 17-19, and 22. These exhibits contain the following information:

a) Plaintiffs Exhibits 11-15 and 17-19. Exhibits 11-15 and 17-19 are copies of email correspondence between Lassiter and Dullaghan during their romantic relationship and contain exchanges concerning day to day events, their affection for each other, discussion of the status of Dullaghan's divorce and recommendations from Lassiter as to how Dullaghan should proceed with respect to certain aspects of her divorce case. Exhibit 12 also includes a draft of a separation agreement sent by Lassiter to Dullaghan. The Trustee introduced this correspondence to establish that Lassiter was an insider of Dullaghan, one of the badges of fraud applicable to the Trustee's actual fraudulent transfer claims, to establish intent in connection with her actual fraudulent transfer claim, and insolvency with respect to both the actual fraudulent transfer claims and the constructive fraudulent transfer claims.¹³ See Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Trial Tr. pp. 69, 80 -87 (Doc. 50), and 299-306 and the Trustee's trial brief, Doc. 29.

13 The Trustee asserted that Dullaghan's transfer of her interests in the Carter Court property to Lassiter were subject to avoidance as both actual fraudulent transfers, i.e. made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors (See § 548(a)(1)(A) and Ohio Revised Code ("ORC") § 1336.04(A)), and constructively fraudulent, i.e. for less than reasonably equivalent value (See § 548(a)(1)(B) and ORC § 1336.04(B)). "Because proof of actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors may rarely be established by direct evidence, courts infer fraudulent intent from the circumstances surrounding the transfer." Schilling v. Heavrin (In re Triple S. Rests., Inc.), 422 F.3d 405, 416 (6th Cir. 2005). Such circumstances are reflected in the factors that are often referred to as the "badges of fraud." See ORC § 1336.04(B) and Silagy v. Gagnon (In re Gabor), 280 B.R. 149, 157 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2002).

Because these documents are relevant to the issues litigated in this adversary proceeding (See Decision on Trustee's Fraudulent Conveyance Pursuing Claims Under 11 U.S.C. Section 548(a)(1) and Ohio Revised Code Section 1336.04(A)(1) and (A)(2) Following Trial, Case No. 07-31887, AP No. 08-3068, Doc. 70), were not filed for improper purposes, and for the other reasons explained as to all of the documents filed in the actions, the court determines that these documents are not scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and will not be restricted from public access.

b) Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. Exhibit 20 is a set of email correspondence between Lassiter and Dullaghan relating to the Carter Court property. The Trustee did not seek to have these documents admitted because the same documents were included in Exhibit 1, which was admitted into evidence without objection. See Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Trial Tr. pp. 241. The court found these documents relevant during the trial of the adversary proceeding. (See Decision on Trustee's Fraudulent Conveyance Pursuing Claims Under 11 U.S.C. Section 548(a)(1) and Ohio Revised Code Section 1336.04(A)(1) and (A)(2) Following Trial, Case No. 07-31887, Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Doc. 70). Further, because Lassiter failed to object to their admission as part of Exhibit 1, and because they were not filed for improper purposes and for the other reasons described above as to all of the documents filed in the actions in general, the court finds that these documents are not scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and, therefore, should not be sealed or restricted from public access.

c) Plaintiffs Exhibit 21. Exhibit 21 is a copy of email correspondence between Lassiter and an attorney in which Lassiter requests advice as to the various options Dullaghan may have to address her debts. The Trustee introduced this document to establish that Lassiter was an insider of Dullaghan, one of the badges of fraud applicable to the trustee's actual fraudulent transfer claims, Dullaghan's insolvency and Lassiter's knowledge of Dullaghan's insolvency. The Trustee also used it for impeachment purposes. See Adv. Proc. No. 08-3068, Trial Tr. pp. 187-89, 299-306 (Docs. 50 & 52) and the Trustee's trial brief, Doc. 29. Lassiter did not object to the introduction of this document at trial. See Id., Trial Tr. pp. 241-46.

Again, because these documents are relevant (See Decision on Trustee's Fraudulent Conveyance Pursuing Claims Under 11 U.S.C. Section 548(a)(1) and Ohio Revised Code Section 1336.04(A)(1) and (A)(2) Following Trial, Case # 07-31887, AP # 08-3068, Doc. 70), were not filed for improper purposes and for the other reasons described above as to all of the documents filed in the actions, the court finds that these documents are not scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and, therefore, should not be restricted from public access.

d) Plaintiff's Exhibit 22. Exhibit 22 is a letter written by Lassiter to Moser concerning Dullaghan's divorce and appears to be an attempt by Lassiter to negotiate a resolution of the divorce on Dullaghan's behalf. The Trustee introduced this document to establish that Lassiter was an insider of Dullaghan as one of the badges of fraud applicable to the trustee's actual fraudulent transfer claims and the intent element relating to the actual fraudulent transfer claim. See Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068, Trial Tr. pp. 56-58 and 299-306 (Docs. 50 & 52) and the Trustee's trial brief, Doc. 29. For the same reasons previously stated, Exhibit 22 is not scandalous and should not be restricted from public access.

Exhibits Related to the Stay and Discharge Injunction Motions and Hearing. During the June 23, 2009 telephonic hearing, Dullaghan, Moser, and Lassiter agreed to withdraw the following exhibits filed in support of or in opposition to the stay and discharge injunction motions: Dullaghan and Moser Joint Exhibits 2, 7, 11, 13-16, 18-22, and 26-27; and Lassiter Exhibits N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W and X.¹⁴ Because the parties agree that these documents are irrelevant and have withdrawn those exhibits, many of these documents contain personal information for which the public has no legitimate need for access, and the documents contain material that could be harmful to the parties' reputations, the court finds these documents to be scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and is restricting access to these documents to the parties and their counsel.

14 The court acknowledged that the parties may use these documents for impeachment purposes if appropriate. See Federal Rules of Evidence 607 and 613.

Lassiter Exhibit Y is the Magistrate's Decision in Warren County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 07C733 filed October 30, 2007 regarding custody of Dullaghan's and Lassiter's minor child. Given the personal information and personal identifiers, including as to the minor child, the potential harm to the parties' reputations, and that the document bears little relationship to any determination made or to be made by this court, the court finds that such document is scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and shall be restricted from public access.

D. Protection of Personal Identifiers

Because Lassiter's motions raise the issue of public access to the materials filed in the actions and because many of these materials contained "personal identifiers," the court will discuss the importance of the removal of such personal identifiers prior to the filing of documents. Provisions were added to the Bankruptcy Code by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA") to protect certain information that otherwise might be contained in filed documents that could be used by third parties for improper purposes, such as to commit "identity theft" to illegally obtain credit.¹⁵ Sections 107(c)(1) and 112 and BR 9037 delineate those protections. Specifically, BR 9037(a) provides that:

15 See Ferm v. United States Trustee (In re Crawford), 194 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) for a decision discussing cases concerning the risk of identity theft from personal identifiers contained in publicly filed documents.

Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing made with the court that contains an individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual, other than the debtor, known to be and identified as a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only:

(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;

(2) the year of the individual's birth;

(3) the minor's initials; and

(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.

These items are commonly referred to as "personal identifiers."

The parties in these actions filed a multiplicity of documents containing those personal identifiers, including items from all four categories of personal identifiers described by BR 9037. The court, on its own initiative, has taken steps to protect that information by restricting access to the public to those documents pending the re-filing of the offending documents with the personal identifiers appropriately modified. The parties have cooperated in filing substituted documents with the personal identifiers redacted. See Case No. 07-31887, Docs. 62 -71; Adv. Proc. No. 07-3215, Docs. 85 and 86; Adv. Proc. No. 08-3068, Doc. 69 and Case No. 05-38518, Doc. 34.

The court raises these issues in hope of educating and reminding bankruptcy court filers of the importance of reviewing all documents to be filed for the presence of personal identifiers. The court's experience is that most of these violations do not occur with respect to substantive filings, but rather in documents submitted with such filings, such as information contained in or attached to proofs of claim, exhibits to filings, and trial and hearing exhibits. Bankruptcy Rule 9037 places the onus of checking for personal identifiers on the filer, not on the court. At least one court has ruled that the failure to follow the strictures of BR 9037 may be sanctionable under the court's contempt powers. See French v. American General Financial Svcs. (In re French), 401 B.R. 295, 315 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2009).

In view of today's technology and the ability of technologically skillful criminals, the need for filers to use the utmost diligence in reviewing filings and modifying personal identifiers to protect themselves and any other persons who potentially could be injured as a result of the disclosure of personal identifiers in filings cannot be sufficiently emphasized. The court will not police filings for such information, but will take appropriate measures should filings containing such information be brought to its attention through an appropriate motion or other filing.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court FINDS that a) the following documents are scandalous under § 107(b)(2) and shall continue to be restricted from public access pursuant to BR 9018 and BR 9037(d): Dullaghan's trial exhibits G and L and Lassiter trial exhibits 15 and 16 filed in the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding and Dullaghan and Moser Joint Exhibits 2, 7, 11, 13-16, 18-22, and 26-27 and Lassiter Exhibits N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X and Y filed relating to the stay and discharge injunction motions and hearing; b) the dockets and all other documents, exhibits, and materials filed in the cases and adversary proceedings are not scandalous and shall remain open to the public for inspection and copying; and c) all personal identifiers contained in documents filed with the court shall remain restricted from public access pursuant to § 107(c)(1), BR 9018 and BR 9037.

The court will enter separate orders in the appropriate actions in accordance with this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Christo Lassiter, 839 Dunore Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45220 (Movant) (pro se)

Devon L. Dullaghan, 200 Woodland Road, Mason, Ohio 45040 (Debtor) (pro se)

Michael J Davis, 8093 Columbia Road, Suite 103, Mason, OH 45040 (Counsel to Debtor

Joseph H. Moser) Joseph H. Moser, 966 Sheffield Drive, Mason, OH 45040 (Debtor)

Ruth A. Slone, P.O. Box 3340, 2747 W. Alex Bell Rd., Dayton, OH 45401-3340 (Chapter 7 Trustee)

Stephen D. Brandt, P.O. Box 3340, 2747 W. Alex Bell Rd., Dayton, OH 45401-3340 (Counsel to the Chapter 7 Trustee)

United States Trustee, 170 North High St., Ste. 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215

APPENDIX LIST OF EXHIBITS

I.Lassiter v. Grove Merritt; Adv. Pro. 07-3215

A.Exhibits filed by Lassiter (Adv. Doc. 19)

Exhs. 1-2: Deeds relating to the Carter Court property; Exhs. 3-4 Documents pertaining to the refinancing of the Carter Court property; Exhs. 5-7 Documents pertaining to Dullaghan's and Moser's divorce; Exh. 8: Transcript or partial transcript of a hearing in Warren County Ohio Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, relating to Dullaghan's and Lassiter's minor daughter; Exh. 10: Incident Report from the Mason, Ohio Police Department; Exh. 11: Inspection report prepared by Ella Walters regarding the Carter Court property following Dullaghan's vacating of that property; Exh. 12: Inspection report from Darlene S. Burke regarding the Carter Court property following Dullaghan's vacating of that property; Exh. 13: Itemization of Lassiter's expenses incurred in preparing the Carter Court property for sale or rental following Dullaghan's vacating of the property, along with copies of receipts for those expenses; Exh. 14: Memorandum from Lassiter to counsel for the Chapter 7 trustee dated August 25, 2007 responding to the trustee's request for information pertaining to the Carter Court property; Exh. 15: Guardian Ad Litem's Report filed with Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division; Exh. 16: A Warren County Children Services Homestudy Report; Exh. 17: Copy of the transcript of Dullaghan's creditors' meeting pursuant to § 341; Exh.18: Letter dated March 19, 2007 from the University of Cincinnati to Dullaghan, fka Devon L. Grove-Merritt; Exhs. 19-20: Warren County, Ohio Magistrate's Decision Recommending Dismissal of Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order Ex Parte and an Entry Overruling Objections to that decision; Exh. 21: Dullaghan's bankruptcy petition and schedules; Exh. 22: Tax returns, a pay stub, and Wage and Tax Statements for Dullaghan; Exhs. 23-24: Real estate recording and tax information from Warren County, Ohio, records pertaining to the Carter Court property; Exh. 25: Dullaghan's Application for Waiver of the Chapter 7 Filing Fee; Exh. 26: Magistrate's Decision regarding custody of Lassiter's and Dullaghan's minor child filed with the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division; Exh. 27: Lassiter's receipts from a December 2005 trip to Pigeon Forge, Tennessee;

Exh. 28: Letter from JoAnn Wyatt to Dullaghan; Exh. 31: Court filings in Eagle Industries of Ohio, Inc. v. Emminger, Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Case No. 04CV07306 and A0509297; and Exhs. 32-33: Transcripts regarding the custody issues pertaining to Lassiter's and Dullaghan's minor child.

B.Exhibits filed by Dullaghan (Adv. Docs. 22 & 23)

Exh. A: Excerpts of different statutes which Dullaghan claimed that Lassiter violated; Exh. B: Documents pertaining to amounts that Dullaghan claimed she paid to Lassiter in compensation for Lassiter's making of the mortgage payments on the Carter Court property and documents pertaining to assumption of a Veterans' Administration loan; Exh. C: Redacted 401(K) statement for Dullaghan; Exh. D: Hand-written note written to Dullaghan; Exh. E: Writings of Dullaghan regarding Lassiter; Exh. F: Hand-written letter dated April 30, 2004 from Lassiter to Dullaghan; Exh. G: Approximately 125 pages of email correspondence primarily between Dullaghan and Lassiter in which they express their affection for each other, narrate their daily affairs, the status Dullaghan's divorce from Moser, and after their relationship terminated, convey their disagreements; Exh. H: Correspondence concerning the refinancing of the Carter Court property; Exh. I: Documents pertaining to a homeowners' insurance policy for the Carter Court property; Exh. J: Documents concerning Lassiter's refinancing of the Carter Court property, including the closing documents; Exh. L: Copy of an email memorandum from the University of Cincinnati to Dullaghan concerning Lassiter's service as the University of Cincinnati's Appeals Chair; and Exh. M: Hand-written notes from Dullaghan to Lassiter concerning her affection for him.

II.Slone v. Lassiter; Adv. Pro. No. 08-3068

A.Exhibits filed by the plaintiff trustee (Adv. Doc. 31)

Exh. 1: Excerpts from Lassiter's response to the trustee's request for information; Exh. 2: Lassiter's responses to the trustee's written interrogatories;

Exh. 3: Printout from the Warren County, Ohio, Auditor's, Recorder's, and Treasurer's records relating to the sales history for the Carter Court property; Exh. 4: Barry K. Teegarden's Appraisal Report; Exhs. 5-7: Deeds for to the Carter Court property; Exhs. 8-10: Closing documents from the refinancing of the Carter Court property; Exhs. 11-15 Email correspondence between Lassiter and Dullaghan & 17-20: concerning their affection for each other, their daily affairs and the status of Dullaghan's divorce from Moser; Exh. 16: Email correspondence from Dullaghan to a real estate agent; Exh. 21: Email colloquy between Lassiter and an attorney friend of Lassiter's from whom Lassiter sought legal advice concerning Dullaghan's debts; Exh. 22: Letter from Lassiter to Moser concerning Dullaghan's divorce from Moser.

B.Exhibits filed by Lassiter (Adv. Doc. 28)

Exhs. 1, 2 & 23: Deeds for the Carter Court property; Exhs. 3, 4 & 9: Closing and related documents pertaining to refinancing of the Carter Court property; Exh. 5: A Magistrate's Decision from the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, pertaining to the Dullaghan and Moser divorce; Exhs. 6, 8 & 12: Records relating to encumbrances, sales history, and valuations relating to the Carter Court property from the Warren County, Ohio, records; Exh. 7: Domania internet report on sales of real estate on Carter Court, Mason, Ohio; Exh. 10: Incident Report filed with the Mason, Ohio, Police Department; Exhs. 11 & 13: Report prepared by Ella Walters concerning the condition of the Carter Court property on March 20, 2007 and expenses paid by Lassiter to prepare the property for sale or rental; Exh. 14: Lassiter's response to the trustee's request for information; Exh. 15: Dullaghan's Application for Waiver of Filing Fee filed in her bankruptcy case; Exh. 16: Transcript of Dullaghan's creditors' meeting held pursuant to § 341; Exh. 17: Hand-written computations made by Barry K. Teegarden on cross-examination by Lassiter at the trial; Exh. 18: Email correspondence from Dullaghan to Lassiter dated March 26, 2007 concerning the Carter Court property; Exh. 19: Dullaghan's answer to the complaint in the Lassiter v. Grove-Merritt adversary proceeding;

Exh. 20: Complaint filed in the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court by Dullaghan and Lassiter against Moser (Case No. 05CV63988); Exh. 21: Lassiter's resume; Exh. 22: Receipts from Lassiter's December 2005 trip to Pigeon Forge, Tennessee; and Exh. 24: Affidavit of Dullaghan dated September 27, 2004 filed in the Dullaghan and Moser divorce case.

III.In re Moser; Case No. 05-38518

A.Exhibits attached by Moser to the stay and discharge injunction motion (Doc. 19)

Exh. A: Letters from Lassiter to the Board for Correction of Naval Records; Exhs. B & K: Excerpts from transcripts of court hearings from Moser's and Dullaghan's divorce; Exh. C: Email correspondence between Lassiter and Dullaghan, including several letters apparently from Lassiter to Moser's divorce and bankruptcy counsel and one apparently to Moser himself; Exh.D: Hand-written note written by Lassiter and an Ohio case concerning the standard of establishing "adultery" in a marriage in Ohio; Exh. E: Two letters from Lassiter to Moser; Exh. F: Complaint filed in the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court by Dullaghan and Lassiter against Moser (Case No. 05CV63988); Exh. G: Complaint filed in the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court by Lassiter against Moser (Case No. 07CV67718); Exh. H: Magistrate's Decision in Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Case No. 07CV67718; Exh. I: Complaint filed in the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court by Lassiter against Moser and Dullaghan (Case No. 08CV73158); and Exh. J: Letter from the Disciplinary Counsel for The Supreme Court of Ohio to Moser concerning a complaint filed by Moser against Lassiter.

IV.In re Dullaghan,Case No. 07-31887

A.Exhibits attached by Dullaghan to the stay and discharge injunction motion (Doc. 44)

Exh. A: Docket sheet for Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Case No. 05CV63988 captioned Devon Moser v. Joseph Moser; Exh. B: Letter from Dullaghan to the Mason Police Department requesting copies of public records concerning complaints by Lassiter against Dullaghan and the response received by Dullaghan from the police

department, which consists of an Incident Report dated December 13, 2006 and an Incident Report dated August 1, 2008; Exhs. C & D: Email correspondence between Dullaghan and Lassiter; Exh. E: Summons and complaint from Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Case No. 08CV73158 captioned Christo Lassiter v. Joseph Moserand Devon Dullaghan; Exh. F: Mortgagee statement from USAA addressed to "Devon L. Grove-Merritt"; Exh. G: Amended Motion and Magistrate's Order Denying Request for Ex ParteCivil Stalking or Sexually Oriented Offense Protection Order and SettingCase for Full Hearing filed in the Hamilton County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas in Christo Lassiter v. Devin L. Dullaghan; Case No. 0801336; Exh. H: Order entered January 14, 2009 in the Slone v. Lassiter adversary proceeding; and Exh. I: Magistrate's Decision in Case No. 07-C00733 in the Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division.

B.Proposed Joint Exhibits filed by Moser and Dullaghan in anticipation or the June 18, 2009 hearing on the stay and discharge injunction motion (in addition to those already filed as part of the stay and discharge injunction motions) Docs. 72 & 83.

Exh. 1: Copies of receipts reflecting expenses which Dullaghan and Moser assert were expended relating to the litigation; Exh. 2: Documents" evidencing vexatious litigation efforts against Debtor Dullaghan"; Exhs. 3, 4, 14, 19, 23, 24-28: Various court filings, court dockets, and transcripts; Exh. 5: Ohio attorney licensing information on Lassiter; Exhs.: 6, 10, 13 & 15: Various email correspondence between Dullaghan and Lassiter; Exh. 12: Emails between Dullaghan and Lassiter with drafts of various documents; Exh. 18: Two versions of Lassiter's resume; Exhs.: 20 & 21: Correspondence from Lassiter to the Naval Board of Corrections on behalf of Moser and from Lassiter to Moser concerning the Naval Board of Corrections' denial of relief sought by Moser; and Exh.: 22: Letter from Lassiter to Moser concerning Dullaghan's divorce from Moser.

C.Proposed Exhibits filed by Lassiter in anticipation of the June 18, 2009 hearing on the stay and discharge injunction motions (Docs. 50, 79, & 80)

Exh. A: A Plaintiff's Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for SummaryJudgment and Plaintiff's Request for all Equitable and Statutory Relief

filed March 30, 2009 in Lassiter v. Moser and Dullaghan, Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08CV73158; Exh. B: Complaint for Money Damages and Equitable Relief With DiscoveryRequests Attached in Moser and Lassiter v. Moser, Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 05CV63988; Exh. C: Answer to Request for Admission and Production of Documents filed in Moser and Lassiter v. Moser, Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 05CV63988; Exh. D: Affidavit of Devon L. Moser filed in Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, in Moser v. Moser; Case No. 04DR28631; Exh. E: Affidavit of Devon L. Grove-Merritt filed in Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court in Lassiter v. Moser; Case No. 07CV67718; Exh. F: Moser's responses to the Reissued Plaintiff's Request for Admissionsand Production of Documents to Defendant Joseph H. Moser—Set No. 1 filed in Lassiter v. Moser and Dullaghan, Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08CV73158; Exh. G: Dullaghan's responses to the Reissued Plaintiff's Request for Admissionsand Production of Documents to Defendant Devon L. Dullaghan—Set No. 1 filed in Lassiter v. Moser and Dullaghan, Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08CV73158; Exh. H: Affidavit of Devon L. Dullaghan filed in Lassiter v. Moser and Dullaghan, Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08CV73158; Exh. I: Documents allegedly provided by Moser to the Disciplinary Counsel for The Supreme Court of Ohio with a letter dated September 28, 2004; Exh. J: Documents allegedly provided by Dullaghan to the Warren County Juvenile Court in June 2007; Exh. K: Documents allegedly provided to Stephen Brandt, counsel for the Chapter 7 trustee for Dullaghan's bankruptcy case after May 2007; Exh. L: Documents allegedly provided by Dullaghan to University of Cincinnati College of Law during 2009; Exh. M: Documents allegedly provided by Moser to this court during 2009; Exh. N: Magistrate's Decision Denying Motion for Sanctions/Counterclaim entered in Hamilton County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Case No. SK0801136; Exh. O: Order on Defendants' Verified Motion to Dismiss, Counterclaim, Requestsfor Sanctions and Notice of Jurisdictional Issues in Lassiter v. Moser andDullaghan, Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 08CV73158; Exh. P: Letter from the University of Cincinnati Provost; Exh. Q: Magistrates' Decision Recommending Dismissal of Domestic Violence CivilProtection Order Ex Parte filed in Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Case No. 07DV3528;

Exh. R: Entry Overruling Objections to Magistrate's Decision filed in Warren County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 07DV3528; Exh. S: Entry from Warren County Common Pleas Court, Probate and Juvenile Division, Case No. 07C733; Exhs. T & U: Order filed January 23, 2009 and a partial transcript in Hamilton County Municipal Court, Case No. 08CRB43260; Exh. V: Partial transcript in Hamilton County Municipal Court, Case No. SKU700794; Exh. W: Email message from Dullaghan to Lassiter dated August 22, 2008; Exh. X: Police department Incident Report dated January 31, 2006; and Exh. Y: Magistrate's Decision in Warren County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, Case No. 07C733 filed October 30, 2007.