Vermont Superior Court Filed 02/28 24 Washmgton nit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT Washington Unit 65 State Street Montpelier VT 05602

802—828—2091 www.vermontjudiciary.org

CIVIL DIVISION

Case No. 22-CV—03879

£3:

fa

Clarification of August 14, 2023, Order

Following the resolution of the dismissal motions, the Court recognized in its

August 14, 2023, Order that this case must be unsealed as to remaining Defendant Rossi

yet remain sealed as to dismissed Defendant Mr. Doe, as required by 12 V.S.A. 522(b).

It explained that the “only way to comply with the statute in case like this is to keep

the filings already sealed under seal, add publicly accessible copies of those filings with

appropriate redactions to protect Mr. Doe’s identity, and lift the sealing order as to

future filings.”

It then ordered Mr. Doe to “submit copies, under seal, of all current

filings in need of redactions to protect his identity with those redactions for the Court’s

approval.” After that, the seal would be lifted as to the redacted filings and all future

filings. The Court expressly ordered that the parties in all future filings refer to Mr. Doe

as such to protect his identity. Mr. Doe’s September 11, 2023, effort at complying with

the Court’s order has proven highly problematic.

(1) Of most concern, many of the proposed, redacted filings appear to be

versions of filings in Mr. Doe’s possession that do not match the corresponding filings in

the Court’s record, which is available to the parties in Odyssey. The official record of this

case consists of the filings in the Court’s record. Those are the filings that Mr. Doe must

Order Page of 22—CV—03879 Bryan Milazzo v. Peter Anthony, et a1

Bryan Milazzo V. Elaine Rossi
Order Page 2 of 3

22-CV-03879 Bryan Milazzo v. Peter Anthony, et al

redact. Inconsistent versions in the possession of the parties are not part of the official 

record of this case.

(2) As Mr. Doe notes in his September 11 filing, nearly all filings prior to 

August 14 need to be redacted, at least to some extent, if for no other reason than 

because Mr. Doe’s name appears in the caption. Despite this, Mr. Doe failed to submit 

proposed redacted versions of many filings, including all Court orders. Any continuing

failure to propose redactions following this Order will be treated as a waiver.

(3) The Court observes that, while most of the redactions currently proposed 

are appropriately limited to concealing information that would identify Mr. Doe, some 

redactions are far more expansive. In particular, the proposed redactions to the New 

York and Vermont complaints are impermissibly overbroad. Redactions are intended to 

reasonably protect Mr. Doe’s identity, but in doing so they must not conceal the basic 

narrative alleged against Ms. Rossi. 

Accordingly, within 45 days, Mr. Doe shall redo all proposed redactions according 

to the following guidelines.

(a) Each and every filing in the Court’s record prior to the August 14 Order 

shall be identified (including by filing date) in a log. 

(b) For each item in the log, Mr. Doe shall indicate whether it may be unsealed

as is or requires redaction.

(c) For each item requiring redaction, the proposed redacted filing shall be 

clearly labeled and identified in the log so that the Court may readily refer to it. 

Redactions must be made to the filed-in-Odyssey version of the filing.
Order Page 3 of 3

22-CV-03879 Bryan Milazzo v. Peter Anthony, et al

(d) Redactions shall be limited to protecting Mr. Doe’s identity without 

concealing the allegations against Ms. Rossi.

(e) The Court reiterates that no party shall identify Mr. Doe in any filings. Mr. 

Milazzo appears to have done so in several filings following the Court’s August 14 Order. 

Mr. Doe shall include any such filings in the log with a request to seal and an 

appropriate proposed redacted filing. Any further identification of Mr. Doe in any 

unsealed filings may warrant significant sanctions.

So ordered.

Electronically signed on Wednesday, February 28, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

 _______________________

Timothy B. Tomasi

Superior Court Judge