Memorandum Opinion

Pending before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34]. This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Complaint for Federal Taxes [Docket 1], wherein the United States seeks to recover unpaid taxes from Dr. Francis J. Whelan by foreclosing on a parcel of real property in Wyoming County, West Virginia.  The action originally named as defendants Dr. Whelan, his three sons, Joseph, David, and Benjamin Whelan, and Ronnie and Wilma Barker, who allegedly had an interest in the real property at issue.  Since then, Dr. Whelan has passed away and his son Benjamin, the personal representative of his estate, has been substituted as a party defendant.¹  Further, the Barkers have relinquished their interest in the property and been dismissed from the case.  (Docket 32 at 1.)    Discovery has closed, and the parties agreed to resolve the case on summary judgment.  (Docket 29 ¶¶ 7-10.)  For the reasons set forth below, the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 34] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court are the above defendants’ motions to exclude audiotape evidence. [Nos. 430, 435, 438, 440, 444, 445, 446, 447, 451, 458, and 516 and the oral motion to join in with these motions made by counsel for Robert Henderson].  The defendants move to exclude all audiotapes obtained by the Government pursuant to wiretap warrants which were issued in the investigation of this case.  For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions and EXCLUDES the use of the audiotape evidence in this case.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

On October 4, 2007, Petitioner filed an “Answer to Respondent’s Memorandum of Law and Motion for Summary Judgment,” with accompanying exhibits.  These documents have not been docketed because both Petitioner’s brief and the exhibits in support thereof contain information which should be redacted in accordance with the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the EGovernment Act of 2002.  In particular, the court is concerned that the names of the minor victims involved in Petitioner’s prosecution for sexual assault and sexual abuse (even though they are now no longer minors) should be redacted because these files are now accessible to the general public in an electronic format on the court’s electronic docketing system.  After reviewing other documents filed in this matter, the undersigned has determined that some of the exhibits filed in support of Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment also contain the minor victims’ full names.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by defendant Rachel E. Auxier (docket #50) and defendants David W. Gordon and Kristopher Gordon (docket # 55). The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge (docket # 18), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and the motions are now ripe for decision.  For the reasons set forth below, the first motion is GRANTED and the latter is DENIED.