Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01016/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01016-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

David H. Griggs, 

Respondent.

__________________________________

David H. Griggs,

Petitioner,

United States of America; Internal

Revenue Service; and Jennifer Pardue,

Revenue Officer, IRS,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1016–PHX-DGC

No. MC-08-0103-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On June 2, 2008, the Court issued an order enforcing an Internal Revenue Service

(“IRS”) summons issued to David Griggs. Dkt. #10. The Government filed a motion for a

contempt finding. Dkt. #13. Griggs has filed a motion to dismiss the order enforcing the

summons on Fifth Amendment grounds. Dkt. #27. Griggs also has filed a petition to quash

the summons. Dkt. #1 (Case No. MC-08-103).

The Government contends that the summonsed documents are not protected by the

Fifth Amendment and the act of producing the documents is not testimonial for purposes of

the Fifth Amendment because the existence of the documents is a “foregone conclusion.”

Case 2:08-cv-01016-DGC Document 39 Filed 12/04/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Dkt. #35 at 5 (citing United States v. Norwood, 420 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2005); Fisher v.

United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408 (1976)). In order for the foregone conclusion rule to apply,

the Government must “establish the existence of the documents sought and [Griggs’]

possession of them with ‘reasonable particularity.’” United States v. Taylor, No. CV-06-

3121-PHX-SRB (LOA), 2007 WL 805662, at *6 (D. Ariz. Mar. 14, 2007) (citation and

quotation marks omitted). The Government asserts that the “IRS is aware of, and Mr. Griggs

has admitted on the record, the existence of bank, business, and other records reflecting

income and wages during the tax periods at issue.” Dkt. #35 at 5-6. This bald assertion is

insufficient to satisfy the “reasonable particularity” standard.

If the Government believes that it can establish the existence of the summonsed

documents and Griggs’ possession of them with reasonable particularity, it shall file a

memorandum by December 12, 2008. Griggs may file a response by December 26, 2008.

The Court will thereafter rule on Griggs’ motion to dismiss and petition to quash the

summons. 

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01016-DGC Document 39 Filed 12/04/08 Page 2 of 2