EXHIBIT 14

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 1:22-cv-24023-SCOLA/GOODMAN

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

UNITED STATES’ AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES 

1-5, AND 7-9, AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES 12-20 

The United States, pursuant to the Court’s Post-Discovery Hearing Order (ECF No. 84) 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, amends its response to Plaintiff’s First Set of 

Interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 10) and responds to Plaintiff’s Second Set of 

Interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 11 through 21).1

The United States incorporates by reference the Objections to the Definitions and 

Instructions in the Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND AMENDED 

RESPONSE TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: For each Request for Admission that You do not admit in full and 

without qualification, Describe all legal and factual bases that tend to support and/or undermine 

Your reasons for not admitting that Request in full and without qualification, and Identify all 

Documents you claim support your reasons for not admitting that Request in full and without 

qualification.

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as compound. 

Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission contains 45 requests. Plaintiff’s Second 

1

 On January 8, 2023, the United States amended its response to Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 10 and 

responded to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 21. The United States is not further amending its 

response to those interrogatories at this time.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 2 of 21
2 

Set of Requests for Admission contains 64 requests. In total, Plaintiff has propounded 

109 separate requests for admission to the United States. To date, the United States has 

denied, in whole or in part, 43 of the first 45 requests for admission. The deadline to 

respond to the Second Set of Requests for Admission is January 30, 2024. This 

interrogatory seeks explanations of at least 43 of the United States’ responses to 

Plaintiff’s requests for admission. Each request for admission for which the United 

States must provide a factual basis for its denial or partial denial, plus all documents to 

support the denials or partial denials, must be considered a discrete subpart. See 

Superior Sales West, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 335 F.R.D. 98, 104-05 (W.D. Tex. 2020); see 

also Pouncil v. Brach Law Firm, 277 F.R.D. 642, 647 (D. Kan. 2011); Commodores 

Entertainment Corp. v. McClary, No. 14-1335, 2015 WL 12843874, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 

Nov. 6, 2015). Because Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits parties 

to twenty-five interrogatories, including discrete subparts, this interrogatory alone 

exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted. 

To the extent any of the requests for admission seeks a conclusion of law as opposed 

to a discrete fact that is not seriously in dispute, the request is “beyond the proper 

scope of Rule 36.” Akowskey v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 21-14487, 2022 WL 

17342202, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2022) (Maynard, J.); see also In re Olympia 

Holding Corp., 189 B.R. 846, 853 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1995) (collecting cases). 

To the extent the United States answered any request for admission with only 

objections, the United States incorporates those objections, such as relevance and 

proportionality, in response to this compound interrogatory. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For all federal income tax years between 2013 and 2018, Identify 

all Persons who accessed, Inspected, and/or Disclosed Mr. Griffin’s Return Information as well 

as the Taxpayer Return Information for at least 50 other Targeted Taxpayer Returns, and

Describe how You Identified all such Persons.

OBJECTIONS: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 2 as compound and 

will treat it as three distinct interrogatories: (1) “Identify all Persons who accessed, 

Inspected, and/or Disclosed Mr. Griffin’s Return Information”; (2) “Identify all

Persons who accessed, Inspected, and/or Disclosed . . . as well as the Taxpayer Return 

Information for at least 50 other Targeted Taxpayer Returns”; and (3) “Describe how 

You Identified all such Persons.” Based on this objection, the United States responds 

separately to each discrete subpart of this interrogatory. 

The United States further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

not relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses, and not proportional to the needs of the 

case to the extent it seeks the identity of all Persons who lawfully accessed, inspected, or 

disclosed Mr. Griffin’s Return Information and the identity of all Persons who accessed 

or inspected “the Taxpayer Return Information for at least 50 other Targeted Taxpayer 

Returns.” This case concerns the disclosure of Mr. Griffin’s return information to 

ProPublica. Mr. Griffin lacks standing to assert a wrongful disclosure claim under 26 

U.S.C. § 7431 on behalf of other taxpayers. See Norman E. Duquette, Inc. v. Comm'r, 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 3 of 21
3 

110 F. Supp. 2d 16, 23 (D.D.C. 2000) (“Section 7431 explicitly restricts standing to 

taxpayers whose tax return information has been improperly disclosed.”). And so, the 

United States will respond to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks the identities of 

individuals who unlawfully accessed, inspected, or disclosed Mr. Griffin’s Return 

Information to ProPublica and how any individuals were identified (to the extent such 

information is not protected from disclosure by 26 U.S.C. § 6103). 

The United States further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information 

protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigatory privilege or 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6103. The steps taken by TIGTA to investigate the disclosure of return information 

to ProPublica are investigative techniques that are protected by the investigatory 

process privilege. And the information gathered by TIGTA during its investigation of 

Mr. Littlejohn constitutes Mr. Littlejohn’s return information under 26 U.S.C. § 

6103(b)(2). There is no exception that authorizes the disclosure of that information in 

this litigation.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2.1: Charles Edward Littlejohn wrongfully 

disclosed Mr. Griffin’s Return Information to ProPublica. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2.2: As detailed in the filings in United 

States v. Littlejohn, No. 23-cr-343 (D.D.C.), Charles Edward Littlejohn wrongfully 

disclosed return information of taxpayers other than Mr. Griffin to ProPublica. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2.3: TIGTA identified Mr. Littlejohn as the 

individual responsible for wrongfully disclosing thousands of taxpayers’ return 

information to ProPublica, including Mr. Griffin’s return information, as part of its 

investigation under Title 26. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For all INSOLE Files containing Taxpayer Return Information for

federal income tax years between 2010 and 2018, provide the following: 

a. A Description of the categories of data derived from each sample

Return included therein; 

b. A Description of the categories of data derived from the microdata records 

for each sample Return included therein; 

c. A Description of which INSOLE File(s) contain Mr. Griffin’s Return 

and/or Mr. Griffin’s Return Information; 

d. A Description of the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards You

use to protect these INSOLE Files from unlawful disclosure; and 

e. A Description of how You can Identify all Persons who access, Inspect,

and/or Disclose these INSOLE Files.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 4 of 21
4 

OBJECTIONS: The United States objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks 

information for years 2010 through 2012 as overly broad and not proportional to the 

needs of this case because Mr. Griffin does not allege the wrongful disclosure of his 

return information for these years.

The United States further objects to this interrogatory because it is not relevant to the 

parties’ claims or defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case. Mr. 

Littlejohn did not have access to INSOLE files during the time period at issue and he 

did not disclose INSOLE Files containing Mr. Griffin’s Return Information to 

ProPublica. 

RESPONSE: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the United States refers Mr. Griffin to 

Exhibits A through F, which were produced in the original response to Plaintiff’s First 

Set of Interrogatories. Exhibits A through F are publicly available documents that 

show the content of the INSOLE files for, respectively, years 2013 through 2018. A 

red square in Exhibits A though F denotes that the item is in the INSOLE file.

The INSOLE files for years 2013 through 2014 and for years 2016 through 2018 

contain at least some of Mr. Griffin's Return Information. The INSOLE File for year 

2015 does not contain Mr. Griffin’s Return Information. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify all data systems and files that contain Mr. Griffin’s Return

Information which also contains information of his Taxpayer Identity for federal income tax 

years between 2010 - 2018 (e.g., INSOLE File, IRS Individual Master File, etc.), and for each

data system and/or file, Identify the five Persons most knowledgeable about non-privileged 

discoverable facts regarding:

a. A Description of the categories of data contained in each of these data

systems and/or files;

b. A Description of how Taxpayer Return Information contained in these 

data systems and/or files are stored;

c. A Description of how to identify which Persons have authority to access 

these data systems and/or files;

d. A Description of the mechanismsin place to track the details of instances

where Persons access, Inspect, alter, and/or Disclose Taxpayer Return

Information in these data system and/or files; and

e. The administrative, technical, and physical safeguards You use to protect 

Taxpayer Return Information contained in these files from unlawful 

disclosure. 

OBJECTIONS: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it seeks 

information for years 2010 through 2012 as overly broad and not proportional to the 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 5 of 21
5 

needs of this case because Mr. Griffin does not allege the wrongful disclosure of his 

return information for those years. 

The United States further objects to this interrogatory because it is not relevant to the 

parties’ claims or defenses and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff sent 

this Interrogatory before he knew who disclosed his return information to ProPublica 

and what information of his was disclosed. But Mr. Griffin now knows that Mr. 

Littlejohn is the one who disclosed his return information to ProPublica. And the 

United States is producing, in response to Interrogatory No. 19.1, documents 

containing Mr. Griffin’s return information that Mr. Littlejohn disclosed to ProPublica. 

RESPONSE: As a person working under the contracts identified in response to 

Interrogatory No. 18.1, Charles Littlejohn was authorized to access the IRS’s Compliance 

Data Warehouse (CDW) masked taxpayer identification (TIN) database and the NHQ or 

Unmasked TINs (CDW-UNMASKED TINS) database. Mr. Littlejohn had access to Mr. 

Griffin’s Taxpayer Identity information because he had access to the CDW databases. 

The United States cannot speculate who might be most knowledgeable, but identifies 

Reza Rashidi, Director, Data Management Division, RAAS as a person likely to have 

discoverable information regarding the CDW databases Mr. Littlejohn was authorized 

to access.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Describe all steps that the IRS has taken to determine whether Mr. 

Griffin’s Return Information for any federal income tax years between 2013 and 2018 was

Disclosed to ProPublica in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, and Identify the five Persons most 

knowledgeable about the non- privileged discoverable facts that tend to support and/or 

undermine Your determinations.

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 5 as compound and will 

treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Describe all steps that the IRS has taken to 

determine whether Mr. Griffin’s Return Information for any federal income tax years

between 2013 and 2018 was Disclosed to ProPublica in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103”; 

and (2) “Identify the five Persons most knowledgeable about the non- privileged 

discoverable facts that tend to support and/or undermine Your determinations.” Based 

on this objection, the United States responds separately to each discrete subpart of this 

interrogatory. 

The United States further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information 

protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. The steps 

taken by TIGTA to investigate the disclosure of return information to ProPublica are 

investigative techniques that are protected by the investigatory process privilege. 

The United States further objects to Plaintiff’s instruction to identify five persons who 

are most knowledge about the information sought in this interrogatory because it 

assumes there are at least five persons with such knowledge. The United States will 

identify the individuals who are knowledgeable about the information sought in this 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 6 of 21
6 

interrogatory without regard to the arbitrary demand to identify a specific number of 

individuals. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5.1: In the wake of articles in ProPublica 

describing tax information of wealthy taxpayers, the IRS referred the matter to TIGTA to 

investigate the source of the data leak. As detailed in filings in United States v. Littlejohn, 

No. 23-cr-343 (D.D.C.), TIGTA determined that Mr. Littlejohn disclosed Mr. Griffin’s 

Return Information to ProPublica in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6103. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5.2: The United States cannot speculate as 

to who is most knowledgeable. The employees or officers of the United States that have 

personal knowledge of TIGTA’s investigation are Special Agent in Charge, Special 

Investigations Unit, Erik Wood and Special Agent, Special Investigations Unit, Cole 

Ashcroft. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe all steps that You have taken to determine whether you 

failed to establish and/or maintain adequate administrative, technical, and/or physical safeguards 

to protect Mr. Griffin’s Return Information from unlawful Disclosure, as alleged in the 

Complaint, and Identify the five Persons most knowledgeable about the non-privileged 

discoverable facts that tend to support and/or undermine Your determinations. 

OBJECTIONS: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 7 as compound and 

will treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Describe all steps that You have taken 

to determine whether you failed to establish and/or maintain adequate administrative, 

technical, and/or physical safeguards to protect Mr. Griffin’s Return Information from 

unlawful Disclosure, as alleged in the Complaint”; and (2) “Identify the five Persons 

most knowledgeable about the non- privileged discoverable facts that tend to support 

and/or undermine Your determinations.” Based on this objection, the United States 

responds separately to each discrete subpart of this interrogatory. 

The United States further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information 

protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. The steps 

taken by TIGTA to investigate the disclosure of return information to ProPublica are 

investigative techniques that are protected by the investigatory process privilege. 

Similarly, that privilege protects the disclosure of information regarding how Mr. 

Littlejohn collected and secured taxpayer return information, what Mr. Littlejohn knew 

about IRS security measures, including how to evade insider threat safeguards, and 

how Mr. Littlejohn circumvented IRS security measures. Disclosing that information 

would reveal IRS system vulnerabilities. 

The United States also objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and not 

proportional to the needs of the case. The Court has “acknowledge[d] that the 

Government’s motion [to dismiss] as to count two [the Privacy Act claim] does appear 

likely to succeed.” (ECF No. 79 at 2.) Discovery on a claim that is likely to be dismissed 

places an undue burden on the United States. 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 7 of 21
7 

The United States further objects to Plaintiff’s instruction to identify five persons who 

are most knowledge about the information sought in this interrogatory because it 

assumes there are at least five persons with such knowledge. The United States will 

identify the individuals who are knowledgeable about the information sought in this 

interrogatory without regard to the arbitrary demand to identify a specific number of 

individuals. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7.1: The United States has at all times 

maintained appropriate safeguards to protect Mr. Griffin’s return information from 

unlawful disclosure. The disclosure at issue was made by a lone actor, Mr. Littlejohn, 

who abused his position of trust as a contractor with lawful access to Mr. Griffin’s 

return information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(n). By way of further response, the United 

States refers Mr. Griffin to the criminal filings in United States v. Littlejohn, No. 23-

cr-343 (D.D.C.), which describe how Littlejohn used his technical expertise to 

surreptitiously download Mr. Griffin’s return information to private devices and 

conceal his misconduct. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7.2: The United States cannot speculate as 

to who is most knowledgeable. The employees or officers of the United States that have 

personal knowledge about how Mr. Littlejohn used his technical expertise to 

surreptitiously download Mr. Griffin’s return information to private devices and conceal 

his misconduct are Special Agent in Charge, Special Investigations Unit, Erik Wood and 

Special Agent, Special Investigations Unit, Cole Ashcroft. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If you contend that ProPublica is not in possession of Mr.

Griffin’s Return Information as alleged in the Complaint, describe all legal and factual bases that

tend to support and/or undermine Your contention and identify all Documents that tend to 

support and/or undermine Your contention, and Identify the five Persons most knowledgeable 

about the non-privileged discoverable facts that tend to support and/or undermine your 

contention. 

RESPONSE: The United States admits that Mr. Littlejohn disclosed Mr. Griffin’s 

Return Information to ProPublica. The United States does not know whether 

ProPublica is still in possession of Mr. Griffin’s Return Information. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For all federal income tax years between 2010 and 2018, Identify all

Persons who accessed, Inspected, and/or Disclosed (1) INSOLE File(s) and (2) Public 

Use File(s) that contain Mr. Griffin’s Return Information, and Describe how You Identified all 

such Persons. 

OBJECTIONS: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 9 as compound and 

will treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Identify all Persons who accessed, 

Inspected, and/or Disclosed (1) INSOLE File(s) and (2) Public Use File(s)

that contain Mr. Griffin’s Return Information”; and (2) “Describe how You Identified 

all such Persons.” Based on this objection, the United States responds separately to 

each discrete subpart of this interrogatory. 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 9 of 21
9 

RESPONSE: The IRS had several contracts with Booz Allen Hamilton between 2017 

and 2021. Mr. Littlejohn was part of the Booz Allen staff assigned to work on an 

analytics contract with the IRS Privacy, Governmental Liaison, and Disclosure Office 

(PGLD) and an analytics contract with the IRS Research, Applied Analytics, and 

Statistics Division (RAAS). Under the contracts, Booz Allen Hamilton was responsible 

for ensuring that its employees participated in all IRS required trainings. Mr. Littlejohn 

completed those trainings, including multiple UNAX trainings. The United States refers 

Mr. Griffin to the contracts, which detail Booz Allen Hamilton’s responsibility to ensure 

that contractor personnel complete the required trainings. See, e.g., USA-Griffin-000237 

to USA-Griffin-239 (RAAS contract); USA-Griffin-00558 to USA-Griffin-00560 (PGLD 

contract). In addition, the United States refers Mr. Griffin to Mr. Littlejohn’s training 

transcript (USA-Griffin-2457 to USA-Griffin-2470). The Contracting Officer 

Representatives (Marsha Coleman and Sandra Jackson) assigned to each contract ensured 

that Booz Allen Hamilton complied with the IRS training requirements. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Describe all steps that You took to comply with the requirements 

of 26 U.S.C. § 6103(p)(9) for Booz Allen and Mr. Littlejohn, and Identify the five Persons most 

knowledgeable about Your compliance efforts. 

RESPONSE: Section 6103(p)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code does not apply because 

Mr. Littlejohn was given access to IRS systems under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(n). See 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6103(p)(9) (“The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to disclosures pursuant 

to subsection (n) for purposes of Federal tax administration.”).

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For the period from 2017 through 2021, Identify all Persons 

employed by or otherwise associated with Booz Allen who accessed, Inspected, and/or Disclosed 

Mr. Griffin’s Return Information, and Describe how You Identified all such Persons. 

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 15 as compound and will 

treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Identify all Persons employed by or otherwise 

associated with Booz Allen who accessed, Inspected, and/or Disclosed Mr. Griffin’s 

Return Information”; and (2) Describe how You Identified all such Persons. Based on 

this objection, the United States responds separately to each discrete subpart of this 

interrogatory.

Defendants object to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it seeks the 

identification of individuals employed by or otherwise associated with Booz Allen who 

lawfully accessed, inspected, and/or disclosed Mr. Griffin’s return information as such 

information is not relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses or proportional to the needs 

of the case. The United States responds to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks the 

identification of individuals who unlawfully accessed, inspected, and/or disclosed Mr. 

Griffin’s return information.

The United States further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information 

protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. The steps 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 10 of

21
10 

taken by TIGTA to investigate the disclosure of return information to ProPublica are 

investigative techniques that are protected by the investigatory process privilege. 

The United States further objects to Plaintiff’s instruction to identify five persons who 

are most knowledge about the information sought in this interrogatory because it 

assumes there are at least five persons with such knowledge. The United States will 

identify the individuals who are knowledgeable about the information sought in this 

interrogatory without regard to the arbitrary demand to identify a specific number of 

individuals. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15.1: Charles Edward Littlejohn 

unlawfully disclosed Mr. Griffin’s Return Information to ProPublica in violation of 26 

U.S.C. § 6103. The United States is not aware of any other individuals associated with 

Booz Allen Hamilton who unlawfully accessed, inspected, or disclosed Mr. Griffin’s 

Return Information. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15.2: TIGTA identified Mr. Littlejohn as 

the individual responsible for wrongfully disclosing thousands of taxpayers’ return 

information to ProPublica, including Mr. Griffin’s return information, as part of its 

investigation that led to the prosecution of Mr. Littlejohn for an offense under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7213. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Describe why Your technical, administrative, and physical 

safeguards over the IRS’s data and records systems that ensure all Windows computers 

connected to its network were authorized and compliant with relevant security policies did not 

prevent Mr. Littlejohn from using virtual machines to obtain Mr. Griffin’s Return Information 

while avoiding IRS protocols designed to detect and prevent large downloads or uploads from 

IRS devices or systems, and Identify the five employees or officers of the United States most 

knowledgeable about the non-privileged discoverable facts regarding Your description. 

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 16 as compound and will 

treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Describe why Your technical, administrative, 

and physical safeguards over the IRS’s data and records systems that ensure all Windows 

computers connected to its network were authorized and compliant with relevant security 

policies did not prevent Mr. Littlejohn from using virtual machines to obtain Mr. 

Griffin’s Return Information while avoiding IRS protocols designed to detect and prevent 

large downloads or uploads from IRS devices or systems”; and (2) “Identify the five 

employees or officers of the United States most knowledgeable about the non-privileged 

discoverable facts regarding Your description.” Based on this objection, the United States 

responds separately to each discrete subpart of this interrogatory. 

The United States further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information 

protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. That privilege 

protects the disclosure of information regarding how Mr. Littlejohn collected and secured 

taxpayer return information, what Mr. Littlejohn knew about IRS security measures, 

including how to evade insider threat safeguards, and how Mr. Littlejohn circumvented 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 11 of

21
11 

IRS security measures. Disclosing that information would reveal IRS system 

vulnerabilities. The investigatory privilege prevents the United States from disclosing 

why Mr. Littlejohn was able to use virtual machines to obtain Mr. Griffin’s Return 

Information and disclose it to ProPublica in violation of IRS security measures. 

The United States also objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and not 

proportional to the needs of the case. The Court has “acknowledge[d] that the 

Government’s motion [to dismiss] as to count two [the Privacy Act claim] does appear 

likely to succeed.” (ECF No. 79 at 2.) Discovery on a claim that is likely to be dismissed 

places an undue burden on the United States. 

The United States further objects to Plaintiff’s instruction to identify five persons who 

are most knowledge about the information sought in this interrogatory because it 

assumes there are at least five persons with such knowledge. The United States will 

identify the individuals who are knowledgeable about the information sought in this 

interrogatory without regard to the arbitrary demand to identify a specific number of 

individuals. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.1: The United States refers Mr. Griffin 

to the criminal filings in United States v. Littlejohn, No. 23-cr-343 (D.D.C.). The Factual 

Basis for the Plea (ECF No. 9) discloses non-privileged information about how Mr. 

Littlejohn evaded security safeguards and wrongfully disclosed taxpayer return 

information to ProPublica: 

• In or about July and August 2020, Defendant accessed unmasked IRS data 

associated with thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, including returns 

and return information dating back over 15 years. ECF No. 9 ¶ 10. 

• Defendant thereafter uploaded this data to a private website on multiple 

occasions using a method similar to the one he employed in removing tax 

return and return information associated with Public Official A. In uploading 

the taxpayer returns and return information to a private website, Defendant 

used two virtual machines (essentially simulated versions of physical 

computers) In order to conceal his activities, Defendant promptly destroyed 

these machines after he used them to steal the data from the IRS. ECF No. 9 ¶ 

11. 

• In or about September 2020, Defendant contacted [ProPublica] to discuss the 

possibility of giving them a copy of the data on the nation’s wealthiest 

taxpayers that he had stolen from the IRS. Also, in or about September 2020, 

Defendant, without authorization, anonymously provided the data to 

[ProPublica] by mailing it on a password-protected personal data storage 

device. In or about November 2020, Defendant provided the device’s password 

to a journalist at [ProPublica]. ECF No. 9 ¶ 12. 

• Defendant acknowledges that he willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 12 of

21
12 

to obstruct or impede the administration of justice with respect to the 

investigation of his offenses: 

o Almost all of the files in Defendant’s user profile on his assigned IRS 

laptop were deleted just prior to the laptop being returned to the IRS, 

when Defendant ceased working on [Booz Allen’s] IRS contract in 

2021. 

o Similarly, Defendant destroyed the virtual machines soon after he used 

them to facilitate his theft of the taxpayer returns and return information 

from an IRS database, in one case just minutes after stealing a data set 

and in another case approximately two days after stealing another data 

set. 

o In addition, after uploading the taxpayer returns and return information 

to the private website he had recently created, Defendant promptly 

contacted the domain registration service to cancel the private website’s 

domain registration. ECF No. 9 ¶ 14. 

• Defendant acknowledges that he abused a position of trust and employed 

highly specialized technical skills in furthering his criminal activity. ECF No. 9 

¶ 15. 

Additional non-privileged information regarding Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct may be 

disclosed in a pre-sentencing brief or at the sentencing hearing. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16.2: The United States cannot speculate as 

to who is most knowledgeable. The employees or officers of the United States that have 

personal knowledge about how Mr. Littlejohn was able to use virtual machines to obtain 

Mr. Griffin’s Return Information while avoiding IRS protocols designed to detect and 

prevent large downloads or uploads from IRS devices or systems are Special Agent in 

Charge, Special Investigations Unit, Erik Wood and Special Agent, Special 

Investigations Unit, Cole Ashcroft. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Describe why Your technical, administrative, and physical 

safeguards over the IRS’s data and records systems that convert IRS data into a format that is 

unreadable for unauthorized users did not prevent ProPublica from being able to access Mr. 

Griffin’s Return Information in a readable format after ProPublica received it from Mr. 

Littlejohn, and Identify the five employees or officers of the United States most knowledgeable 

about the non-privileged discoverable facts regarding Your description. 

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 17 as compound and will 

treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Describe why Your technical, administrative, 

and physical safeguards over the IRS’s data and records systems that convert IRS data 

into a format that is unreadable for unauthorized users did not prevent ProPublica from 

being able to access Mr. Griffin’s Return Information in a readable format after 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 13 of

21
13 

ProPublica received it from Mr. Littlejohn”; and (2) “Identify the five employees or 

officers of the United States most knowledgeable about the non-privileged discoverable 

facts regarding Your description.” Based on this objection, the United States responds 

separately to each discrete subpart of this interrogatory. 

The United States further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information 

protected from disclosure by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. That privilege 

protects the disclosure of information regarding how Mr. Littlejohn collected and secured 

taxpayer return information, what Mr. Littlejohn knew about IRS security measures, 

including how to evade insider threat safeguards, and how Mr. Littlejohn circumvented 

IRS security measures. Disclosing that information would reveal IRS system 

vulnerabilities. The investigatory privilege prevents the United States from disclosing 

how Mr. Littlejohn was able to produce Mr. Griffin’s Return Information to ProPublica 

in violation of IRS security measures. 

The United States also objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome and not 

proportional to the needs of the case. The Court has “acknowledge[d] that the 

Government’s motion [to dismiss] as to count two [the Privacy Act claim] does appear 

likely to succeed.” (ECF No. 79 at 2.) Discovery on a claim that is likely to be dismissed 

places an undue burden on the United States. 

The United States further objects to Plaintiff’s instruction to identify five persons who 

are most knowledge about the information sought in this interrogatory because it 

assumes there are at least five persons with such knowledge. The United States will 

identify the individuals who are knowledgeable about the information sought in this 

interrogatory without regard to the arbitrary demand for the identification of a specific 

number of individuals.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1: The United States refers Mr. Griffin 

to the criminal filings in United States v. Littlejohn, No. 23-cr-343 (D.D.C.). The Factual 

Basis for the Plea (ECF No. 9) discloses non-privileged information about how Mr. 

Littlejohn wrongfully disclosed taxpayer return information to ProPublica: 

• In or about July and August 2020, Defendant accessed unmasked IRS data 

associated with thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, including returns 

and return information dating back over 15 years. ECF No. 9 ¶ 10. 

• Defendant thereafter uploaded this data to a private website on multiple 

occasions using a method similar to the one he employed in removing tax 

return and return information associated with Public Official A. In uploading 

the taxpayer returns and return information to a private website, Defendant 

used two virtual machines (essentially simulated versions of physical 

computers) In order to conceal his activities, Defendant promptly destroyed 

these machines after he used them to steal the data from the IRS. ECF No. 9 ¶ 

11. 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 14 of

21
14 

• In or about September 2020, Defendant contacted [ProPublica] to discuss the 

possibility of giving them a copy of the data on the nation’s wealthiest 

taxpayers that he had stolen from the IRS. Also, in or about September 2020, 

Defendant, without authorization, anonymously provided the data to 

[ProPublica] by mailing it on a password-protected personal data storage 

device. In or about November 2020, Defendant provided the device’s password 

to a journalist at [ProPublica]. ECF No. 9 ¶ 12. 

• Defendant acknowledges that he willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted 

to obstruct or impede the administration of justice with respect to the 

investigation of his offenses: 

o Almost all of the files in Defendant’s user profile on his assigned IRS 

laptop were deleted just prior to the laptop being returned to the IRS, 

when Defendant ceased working on [Booz Allen’s] IRS contract in 

2021. 

o Similarly, Defendant destroyed the virtual machines soon after he used 

them to facilitate his theft of the taxpayer returns and return information 

from an IRS database, in one case just minutes after stealing a data set 

and in another case approximately two days after stealing another data 

set. 

o In addition, after uploading the taxpayer returns and return information 

to the private website he had recently created, Defendant promptly 

contacted the domain registration service to cancel the private website’s 

domain registration. ECF No. 9 ¶ 14. 

• Defendant acknowledges that he abused a position of trust and employed 

highly specialized technical skills in furthering his criminal activity. ECF No. 9 

¶ 15. 

Additional non-privileged information regarding Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct may be 

disclosed in a pre-sentencing brief or at the sentencing hearing. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17.2: The United States cannot speculate as 

to who is most knowledge. The employees or officers of the United States that have 

personal knowledge about why IRS’s data and records systems that convert IRS data into 

a format that is unreadable for unauthorized users did not prevent ProPublica from being 

able to access Mr. Griffin’s Return Information in a readable format after ProPublica 

received it from Mr. Littlejohn are Special Agent in Charge, Special Investigations Unit, 

Erik Wood and Special Agent, Special Investigations Unit, Cole Ashcroft. 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 15 of

21
15 

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Describe why it was necessary to disclose Mr. Griffin’s 

Taxpayer Identity information to Mr. Littlejohn, and Identify the five employees or officers of 

the United States most knowledgeable about the non-privileged discoverable facts regarding 

Your description. 

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 18 as compound and will 

treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Describe why it was necessary to disclose Mr. 

Griffin’s Taxpayer Identity information to Mr. Littlejohn”; and (2) “Identify the five 

employees or officers of the United States most knowledgeable about the non-privileged 

discoverable facts regarding Your description” Based on this objection, the United States 

responds separately to each discrete subpart of this interrogatory. 

The United States further objects to Plaintiff’s instruction to identify five persons who 

are most knowledge about the information sought in this interrogatory because it 

assumes there are at least five persons with such knowledge. The United States will 

identify the individuals who are knowledgeable about the information sought in this 

interrogatory without regard to the arbitrary demand to identify a specific number of 

individuals. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18.1: The IRS had several contracts with 

Booz Allen between 2017 and 2021. Mr. Littlejohn was part of the Booz Allen staff 

assigned to work on an analytics contract with the IRS Privacy, Governmental Liaison, 

and Disclosure Office (PGLD) and an analytics contract with the IRS Research, Applied 

Analytics, and Statistics Division (RAAS). Under the PGLD contract, Booz Allen 

committed its employees, including Mr. Littlejohn, to perform analytics as part of 

PGLD’s Identity Assurance Operations Program. The purpose of the PGLD contract was 

to ensure all taxpayers were given access to the ability to use IRS online services. To 

access this information, a taxpayer must first virtually verify their own identity to access 

IRS online services. The IRS contracted with a separate vendor to conduct online identity 

verification. That system, however, was not working efficiently and effectively blocked 

certain taxpayers from accessing IRS online services. The PGLD contract sought to 

identify which taxpayers were impacted and solve access issues related to identity 

assurance. Under the RAAS contract, Booz Allen committed its employees, including 

Mr. Littlejohn, to perform analytics on the IRS’s Small Business and Self-Employed 

Division’s private debt collection program. Mr. Littlejohn’s work under the contracts 

required that he receive access to the IRS’s Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW) masked 

taxpayer identification (TIN) database and the NHQ or Unmasked TINs (CDWUNMASKED TINS) database. Mr. Littlejohn had access to Mr. Griffin’s Taxpayer 

Identity information because he had access to the CDW databases. The United States 

does not contend that it was necessary to disclose Mr. Griffin’s return information to Mr. 

Littlejohn but instead that Mr. Littlejohn was authorized to access Mr. Griffin’s return 

information for the purposes described in this response. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18.2: The United States cannot speculate as 

to who is most knowledgeable. The employees or officers of the United States that have 

personal knowledge about why it was necessary to provide Mr. Littlejohn access to the 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 16 of

21
16 

CDW databases are: (1) Paul Wight, Associate Director, Identity Innovations, PGLD 

Identity Assurance, (2) Rene Schwarzbaum (retired), Director, PGLD Identity Assurance 

from November 2015 until February 2019, (3) Nanette Downing (retired), Director, 

PGLD Identity Assurance from February 2019 until March 2022, (4) John Weaver, 

Initiative Manager, RAAS (no longer with IRS); and (5) Sandy Lin, former RAAS 

Initiative Manager.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Describe all of the Return Information of Mr. Griffin’s that Mr. 

Littlejohn disclosed to ProPublica, including the file names of any files that contained Mr. 

Griffin’s Return Information that was disclosed to ProPublica, and Identify the five employees or 

officers of the United States most knowledgeable about the non-privileged discoverable facts 

regarding Your description. 

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 19 as compound and will 

treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Describe all of the Return Information of Mr. 

Griffin’s that Mr. Littlejohn disclosed to ProPublica, including the file names of any files 

that contained Mr. Griffin’s Return Information that was disclosed to ProPublica”; and 

(2) “Identify the five employees or officers of the United States most knowledgeable 

about the non-privileged discoverable facts regarding Your description.” Based on this 

objection, the United States responds separately to each discrete subpart of this 

interrogatory.

 

The United States further objects to Plaintiff’s instruction to identify five persons who 

are most knowledge about the information sought in this interrogatory because it 

assumes there are at least five persons with such knowledge. The United States will 

identify the individuals who are knowledgeable about the information sought in this 

interrogatory without regard to the arbitrary demand to identify a specific number of 

individuals. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19.1: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the 

United States responds to this interrogatory by providing documents that contain an 

inventory of the Mr. Griffin Return Information that Charles Littlejohn disclosed to 

ProPublica. These documents constitute information that Plaintiff is entitled to receive 

under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(e). The United States is in the process of bates-labeling the 

documents and will produce them in redacted form by January 17, 2024.2

 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19.2: The United States cannot speculate as 

to who is most knowledgeable. The employee or officer of the United States that has

2

 Included in the documents containing Plaintiff’s information that was disclosed to ProPublica 

are Discriminate Function System (DIF) scores. DIF scores are assigned by the IRS and are how 

the IRS primarily selects tax returns for examination. A delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury

has determined that releasing DIF scores would seriously impair Federal tax administration. The 

DIF scores have been redacted under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7). See Teo v. Internal Rev. Serv., No. 

20-81351, 2021 WL 4045003, *3, 11 (Aug. 20, 2021, S.D. Fla.) (Matthewman, J.). 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 17 of

21
17 

personal knowledge about the CDW databases is Reza Rashidi, Director, Data 

Management Division, RAAS.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Describe every manner in which You supervised or otherwise 

exerted control over the performance of Mr. Littlejohn’s work for the IRS, and Identify the five 

employees or officers of the United States with the most knowledgeable about the non-privileged 

discoverable facts regarding Your description. 

OBJECTION: The United States objects to Interrogatory No. 20 as compound and 

will treat it as two distinct interrogatories: (1) “Describe every manner in which You 

supervised or otherwise exerted control over the performance of Mr. Littlejohn’s work 

for the IRS”; and (2) “Identify the five employees or officers of the United States [] 

most knowledgeable about the non-privileged discoverable facts regarding Your 

description.” Based on this objection, the United States responds separately to each 

discrete subpart of this interrogatory. 

The United States further objects to this interrogatory because it presumes that there 

are employees or officers of the United States who supervised or otherwise controlled 

Mr. Littlejohn’s work. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20.1: No employee or officer of the 

United States was directly responsible for supervising or exerting control over the 

performance of Mr. Littlejohn’s work performed for Booz Allen under the contracts 

with the IRS. Supervision of Mr. Littlejohn for the services contracted for by the IRS 

was Booz Allen’s responsibility. The IRS managed the analytics contract and received 

the analytics results (product) from Booz Allen. Supervision of performance of the 

contract and how Booz Allen employees decided to ensure delivery of the tasks 

required under the contract were the responsibility of Booz Allen. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20.2: The United States cannot speculate 

as to who is most knowledgeable. The employees or officers of the United States that 

have personal knowledge about how Booz Allen personnel supervised and directed 

Mr. Littlejohn’s work are: (1) Paul Wight, Associate Director, Identity Innovations, 

PGLD Identity Assurance; (2) Rene Schwarzbaum (retired), Director, PGLD Identity 

Assurance from November 2015 until February 2019; (3) Nanette Downing (retired), 

Director, PGLD Identity Assurance from February 2019 until March 2022; (4) John 

Weaver, Initiative Manager, RAAS (no longer with IRS), and (5) Sandy Lin, former 

RAAS Initiative Manager.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 18 of

21
18 

Verification of Response to Interrogatories

 Based on facts that were provided to me by IRS personnel, by Treasury personnel, and/or 

derived from the IRS’s files and/or Treasury files, I verify that the foregoing responses to 

Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Date: January 15, 2024 ____________________________

 Bart D. Jeffress

 General Attorney, IRS Office of Chief Counsel 

Procedure & Administration 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 19 of

21
19 

Dated: January 15, 2024 DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Mary Elizabeth Smith

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Maryland Bar No. 0712110235 

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096 

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 14198 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

202-307-2089 (v) | 202-514-4963 (f) 

Mary.E.Smith@usdoj.gov 

Stephanie.A.Sasarak@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for the United States 

Of counsel: 

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

United States Attorney

Southern District of Florida 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 20 of

21
20 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 15, 2024, a copy of the foregoing United States’ 

Amended Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Response to Plaintiff’s Second 

Set of Interrogatories was served via electronic mail on counsel of record. 

 Mary Elizabeth Smith

 MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Trial Attorney

 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Division 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2024 Page 21 of

21