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’ NOTICE OF AUTHORITIES

The United States provides this Notice of Authorities relevant to the discovery hearing 

scheduled for March 8, 2024 at 1:30pm. 

Discovery Proportionality

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1): “Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is 

as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' 

relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” (emphasis added). 

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Committee Notes on Rules – 2015 Amendment: “The present 

amendment restores the proportionality factors to their original place in defining the scope of 

discovery . . . The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the 

proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 1 of 6
2

• 26 U.S.C. § 7431(c) Damages. -- In any action brought under subsection (a) [unlawful 

disclosure or inspection of return or return information], upon a finding of liability on the 

part of the defendant, the defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff in an amount equal to the 

sum of--

(1) the greater of--

(A) $1,000 for each act of unauthorized inspection or disclosure of a return or 

return information with respect to which such defendant is found liable, or

(B) the sum of--

(i) the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of such 

unauthorized inspection or disclosure, plus 

(ii) in the case of a willful inspection or disclosure or an inspection or 

disclosure which is the result of gross negligence, punitive damages, plus 

 (2) the costs of the action, plus 

(3) reasonable attorney fees to the extent allowed under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 

• Minda v. United States, 851 F.3d 231, 236 (2d Cir. 2017) (“The district court concluded that 

Minda was entitled to statutory damages only for the act of disclosing the Report and not 

separately for disclosure of each item of information contained in the Report. We agree. . . . 

We find no ambiguity in the statute, and hold that the statute clearly provides an aggrieved 

taxpayer $1,000 in statutory damages for “each act” of unauthorized disclosure, not for each 

item of information disclosed.”) 

• Miller v. United States, 66 F.3d 220, 223-24 (9th Cir. 1995) (Holding that because “the 

statute punishes ‘disclosure,’ not subsequent disseminations . . . we are confident that 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 2 of 6
3

Congress did not intend the bizarre remedy sought in this case [and] the district court 

correctly limited the IRS's damages for unauthorized disclosure to $1,000 for Davega's single 

statement to the Los Angeles Times, Valley Edition.”).

• Snider v. United States, 468 F.3d 500, 508-509 (8th Cir. 2006) (Holding that $1,000 statutory 

damages limited to number of actual disclosures, not subsequent dissemination.

• Garber v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 5:21-cv-546, 2022 WL 1420916, at *11 (N.D. Ga. 

Mar. 24, 2022) (“Though the financial stakes do not alone control the proportionality inquiry, 

the court should nonetheless consider the relationship between the costs of discovery and the 

plaintiff's potential recovery.”). 

• Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650, 654 (11th Cir. 1984) (Discovery sanctions are 

inappropriate when a party has made a good faith effort to comply with request for 

documents.). 

Privilege Logs and 26 U.S.C. § 6103 

• 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A) (defining “return information” to include “any other data, 

received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect 

to . . . the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount 

thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other 

imposition, or offense”). 

• Wiener v. F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972, 982–83 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that “if the withholding 

agency were to reveal the precise nature of the tax return information, the confidentiality 

guaranteed by section 6103 would be compromised”). 

• Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison v. United States, No. 07-cv-88, 2008 WL 4865571, at *10 

(E.D. Tenn. June 27, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. v. United 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 3 of 6
4

States, No. 07-cv-88, 2008 WL 4865566 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 10, 2008) (“[G]iven the extremely 

broad definition of tax return information under Section 6103, producing a privilege log 

would violate the non-disclosure requirement of Section 6103(a).”). 

Testimony Authorization 

• Treas. Reg. § 301.9000-3(a) (“no IRS . . . contractor shall testify or disclose IRS records or 

information to any court . . . without a testimony authorization.”). 

• Treas. Reg. § 301.9000-4(i) (“Nothing in §§ 301.9000–1 through 301.9000–3, this section, 

and §§ 301.9000–5 and 301.9000–6, creates, is intended to create, or may be relied upon to 

create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against 

the United States. Nothing in these regulations creates a separate privilege or basis to 

withhold IRS records or information.”) 

• Lanier v. City of Miami, Dkt. No. 23-cv-22510, 2023 WL 8527177, at *15 (Dec. 8, 2023, 

S.D. Fla.) (Goodman, Mag. J.) (holding that courts do not issue advisory or hypothetical 

opinions about discovery disputes before a party has objected to an opposing party’s plan to 

seek the deposition testimony of a fact witness). 

(Signatures on next page) 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 4 of 6
5

Dated: March 4, 2024 Respectfully Submitted

DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Stephanie A. Sasarak 

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096 

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Maryland Bar No. 0712110235 

BEATRIZ T. SAIZ

New Jersey Bar No. 024761995 

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) 

Stephanie.A.Sasarak@usdoj.gov 

Mary.E.Smith@usdoj.gov 

Beatriz.T.Saiz@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 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 4, 2024, I filed a copy of the foregoing document with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to counsel of record. 

Stephanie A. Sasarak

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Trial Attorney

 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Division 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 6 of 6