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. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

REVISED NOTICE OF HEARING (VIA ZOOM)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing on discovery matters will be held before 

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on May 3, 2024 at 3:30 PM EST via Zoom. The discovery 

matters to be heard include:

• Whether Plaintiff is required to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 5 through 13 by identifying 

the facts, documents, and persons with knowledge that support contentions in Plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint? 

Copies of the relevant source documents were previously emailed to Chambers consistent 

with the procedures set forth in Magistrate Judge Goodman’s Discovery Procedures Order. See 

ECF No. 16 at 4. 

On April 22, 2024, the Court entered an order granting in part, and denying in part the 

United States’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 108. The order dismissed Plaintiff’s Privacy Act 

claim and allowed his wrongful disclosure claim under I.R.C. § 7431(a)(1) to move forward. Id.

That same day, the Court entered a paperless order requiring the Government to confer with 

Plaintiff’s counsel in an effort to agree on whether the discovery hearing is still necessary in light 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2024 Page 1 of 4
2

of the Court’s order regarding the United States’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 109. Defense 

counsel conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel by phone on April 25, 2024 regarding this issue. The 

parties were unable to resolve their discovery dispute or reach an agreement about the discovery 

hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel advised that they believe the hearing should be postponed in light of 

the Court’s order. Defense counsel maintains that the discovery hearing is still necessary because 

the discovery dispute concerns Plaintiff’s claim that survived the motion to dismiss, specifically 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Charles Littlejohn, a contractor, may be considered an “employee” 

under I.R.C. § 7431(a)(1) and his alternative theories for relief on his wrongful disclosure claim. 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3)

 Undersigned counsel conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel by phone on April 25, 2024, in a 

good-faith effort to resolve by agreement the issue raised herein but were unable to reach any 

resolution of the issue. 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2024 Page 2 of 4
3

Dated: April 26, 2024 Respectfully Submitted

DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Mary Elizabeth Smith

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Maryland Bar No. 0712110235 

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096 

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) 

Mary.E.Smith@usdoj.gov 

Stephanie.A.Sasarak@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 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2024 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 26, 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. 

Mary Elizabeth Smith

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Trial Attorney

 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Division 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 120 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2024 Page 4 of 4