Stephens v. Gilmour

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 04/09/26
Washington Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Case No. 24-CV-04273
65 State Street
Montpelier VT 05602
802-828-2091
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Juliet Stephens v. Shannon Gilmour

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion to Seal AND REDACT RECORDS CONTAINING MINOR CHILD'S
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (Motion: 34)
Filer: Juliet Stephens
Filed Date: April 08, 2026

The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Defendant Shannon Gilmour has filed a post-judgment motion requesting enforcement of
the Court's December 9, 2024 Order relating to the redaction of Ms. Gilmour's minor child's

name in the Court's filings.

Brief Background
By way of background, Plaintiff Juliet Stephens filed the present case in October 2024
seeking Ms. Gilmour and her daughter's eviction. In her complaint, Ms. Stephens named both
Ms. Gilmour and her minor daughter, M.G. as defendants. Both Ms. Gilmour and M.G. were

residing at the property, and both were named in the lease as tenants.
On November 19, 2024, Ms. Gilmour filed a motion to have M.G.'s name redacted to her
initials in the filings made to date and redacted in the same manner going forward. On
December 9, 2024, the Court granted this motion with a single word order.
On January 6, 2025, the Court, in part addressing issues related to Ms. Gilmour's ability
to represent M.G. in the litigation, questioned why Plaintiff needed M.G. as a party to the present

eviction, since, as a minor, her residence was largely derivative and dependent on her Mother's
tenancy. In response, Plaintiff moved to dismiss her claims against M.G., which the Court

granted on April 17, 2025. In the same Order, the Court dismissed M.G.'s counterclaims against
Plaintiff, which effectively removed M.G. as a party to the present litigation.
Subsequent to the Court's December 911 Order, the parties have abided by the limitation
to only refer to M.G. using her initials in their filings. While the Court did not conduct a
1
systematic review of the record, it did not find any motions, briefs, or filings where either party
used M.G.’s full name. As well, the Court has taken actions to remove M.G. as a party to this
action. She is not listed as a party or in the caption within the Court’s records.
At the same time, there does appear to be certain documents in the record that have
M.G.’s name. In the Court’s initial review, they appear to generally fall into one of three
categories.
The first are references to M.G. found in pleadings and filings pre-dating the Court’s
December 9, 2024 Order. While limited in number, these references in both the caption and the
body of these filings should be redacted consistent with the Court’s December 9th Order.
The second are references to M.G. found in the Court’s docketing system, particularly the
title of various entries, which are related to filings that M.G. made through her attorney Austin
Anderson. These were likely generated by Attorney Anderson, but the Court finds that it would
only be reasonable to treat these filings in the same manner, and it will act to redact these
electronic tags consistent with the Court’s Order.
The third category of documents are documents that reference M.G. by name, and they
should be divided into two groups. The first are documents, like the Lease, that contain M.G.’s
name. The second are the numerous exhibits and documents, primarily filed by Ms. Gilmour
that contain voluminous information about M.G. including sensitive school records. Most of
these documents were filed after M.G. was dismissed as a party and her claims dismissed, and
they were filed by Ms. Gilmour who was looking to introduce these documents to bolster Ms.
Gilmour’s claims.
The vast majority of Ms. Gilmour’s filings are not available to the public because they
were not admitted, and while they are part of the record in this case, they are not generally
available.
Some of the documents in this category, particularly copies of the lease, and other official
records may have a glancing reference to M.G. This reference to M.G., like in the Lease, is
limited and ancillary to the main purpose of the document. They do not, unlike many of the
Gilmour exhibit, draw undue attention to M.G. or her personal information.
Legal Analysis
In her motion, Ms. Gilmour makes six requests for action. Two of these requests are
reasonable and will be granted. First, the Court will review the docket entries in the file and will
2
redact or rename any filing to avoid using M.G.’s full name. Second, the Court will review any
filings made by either party prior to December 9, 2024 and will create redacted versions reducing
any reference to M.G. in the caption or body of the filing to her initials. The originals will be
sealed from public view. This relief will include the three filings identified in Ms. Gilmour’s
motion: (1) the November 4, 2024 docket entry; (2) Plaintiff’s December 6, 2024 Exhibit 1; and
(3) Plaintiff’s December 6, 2024 Exhibit 2.
As to the remainder of Ms. Gilmour’s requests, the Court finds that it goes beyond the
December 9, 2024 Order and seeks relief that is not due.
First, Ms. Gilmour relies on 33 V.S.A. § 5117 for a general proposition that the Court is
under an obligation to scrub the record of any reference to M.G. Section 5117 specifically
applies to juvenile proceedings and does not apply to civil proceedings. Minors are often
mentioned in public court proceedings and records. Outside of juvenile proceedings, the issue of
confidentiality is handled on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., McNaughton v. Granite City Auto
Sales 108 Vt. 130 (1936) (allowing a minor to bring an action as plaintiff to void a contract with
an auto dealer). There is no rule or statute requiring the redaction of a minor’s information in a
civil case. In such cases, parties may proceed by stipulation or by establishing a right to a
redaction. V.R.P.A.C.R. 9 (laying out the process for redacting or sealing court records). When
there is not a statutory right or rule governing redaction, the Court is obligated to strike a balance
between the inherent and compelling right of public access with certain types of sensitive
information. V.R.P.A.C.R. 6(a) and (b).
Second, while the Court has approved the redaction of M.G.’s name, the ruling did not
put the Court in the position of policing and auditing the record. While Ms. Gilmour has pointed
to three documents, and the Court has found a few more, it is not incumbent on the Court to
comb through the file for every stray reference to M.G.
Third, the Court is of the understanding that the particularly sensitive records filed in this
case, which were filed by and large by Ms. Gilmour, are not available to the public. Ms.
Gilmour’s review appears to confirm this, but the Court will not audit or certify documents filed
by parties. If Ms. Gilmour is aware of documents that have fallen outside of the seal, then she is
welcome to bring them to the Court, and the Court will act with due diligence on the specific
request.

3
Fourth, the Court will clarify its December 9, 2024 Order to apply primarily to the
written filings submitted by the parties and not to stray references to M.G. found in various
exhibits, such as the Lease. When Ms. Gilmour filed her initial motion concerning M.G.’s
identity, the Motion focused on two factors.
First, there was the undue attention and potential embarrassment that might attach to a
minor forced to be part of this case. This issue has largely been resolved by the Court’s removal
of M.G. from the case and from the redaction of her name from captions and briefs.
Second, Ms. Gilmour raised a concern that M.G.’s future eligibility for renting could be
negatively affected by being a part of an eviction. Again, this concern has been largely cured by
M.G.’s dismissal and removal as a party. She is no longer listed as a defendant, and once the
redactions discussed above are completed, one will have to dig deep into the file before coming
across her name. Neither of these reasons require M.G.’s complete erasure from any document
in the record. To the extent that there is a copy of the Lease or another exhibit that references
her, there is no harm. As such, there is neither legal obligation, nor compelling reasons to
expended limited judicial resources to audit and redact the thousands of pages that the parties,
particularly Ms. Gilmour filed in this matter, which may have a passing reference to M.G.
Additionally, the Court will further clarify the December 9th Order to direct that any
filing concerning M.G.’s confidential school or health-care records shall be sealed pursuant to
Rules 6 and 9. V.P.A.C.R. 6, 9. It is the Court’s understanding that these records, again largely
filed by Ms. Gilmour, have already been sealed as they were not admitted. This clarification
extends this redact to a permanent seal. If Ms. Gilmour is aware of a record that fits into this
category that is visible to the public, she is directed to inform the Court of its status, and the
Court will take corrective action.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Defendant Gilmour’s Motion to Redact and Seal is Granted in
Part and Denied in Part. The Court directs the Court staff to remove any docketing titles or
notations with M.G.’s name and otherwise remove her name as a party to this matter, to the
extent that this has not already occurred. The Court further directs Court staff that any filings
(including briefs, pleadings, motions, or other written responses) filed prior to December 9, 2024
be reviewed and to the extent that M.G.’s name appears in the caption or body of the filing, it
shall be redacted and the original sealed. All other relief sought by Defendant is Denied.
4
Electronically signed on 4/8/2026 7:00 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

Xp
__________________________________
Daniel P. Richardson
Superior Court Judge

5