1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISON

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-24023-SCOLA/GOODMAN

KENNETH C. GRIFFIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

 Defendants.

JOINT STATUS REPORT

The parties in the above-captioned action (collectively, “Parties”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel and in accordance with this Court’s October 4, 2023 Paperless Order (ECF 

No. 38) regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority / Potential Mootness (ECF No. 37), 

hereby submit this Joint Status Report to inform the Court of the following:

1. Defendant’s Position: On September 29, 2023, the United States filed an 

Information in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that Charles 

Edward Littlejohn, a contractor for a company that contracts with the IRS, willfully disclosed 

without authorization return or return information as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b) to news 

organizations. United States v. Littlejohn, Dkt. No. 1:23-cr-000343-ACR (Sept. 29, 2023) (Dkt. 

No. 1). This development has no bearing on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the only operative 

pleading -- Plaintiff’s complaint -- which does not allege a violation of IRC § 6103 with any 

specificity. While the Defendant will not oppose a request by Plaintiff to amend his complaint to 

include recently discovered facts relevant to his claim for damages, it cannot withdraw its motion 

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2023 Page 1 of 5
2

to dismiss until Plaintiff files a proper pleading that renders the motion moot. We note in this 

regard that Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority/Potential Mootness is not a proper 

pleading that requires a response. It cites no supplemental authority but, instead, includes recently 

discovered facts and Plaintiff’s views on how this case should proceed. Because Plaintiff has yet 

to allege those facts in an amended complaint, the Court should not consider them in deciding the 

Defendant’s pending motion. And if it did, those bare facts do not support a claim for damages 

against the United States under IRC § 7431(a)(1) because the defendant named in the Information 

is not an employee or official of the government. Instead, Plaintiff’s claim must be brought against 

the contractor under IRC § 7431(a)(2). 

2. Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff continues to believe that Defendants’ pending motion 

to dismiss should be denied, particularly as the Criminal Information referenced in Plaintiff’s 

Notice of Supplemental Authority / Potential Mootness confirms that, contrary to the primary thesis 

of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the willful and intentionally malicious conduct of IRS Personnel 

(including but not limited to Charles Littlejohn) were ultimately responsible for Defendants’ 

failure to safeguard Plaintiff’s confidential return information as well as its subsequent unlawful 

inspection and disclosures. In light of Defendants’ continued refusal to withdraw their Motion to 

Dismiss (as described above), however, Plaintiff will likely seek leave to amend his complaint in 

the coming days and, subject to this Court’s authorization and approval, Plaintiff will be in a 

position to file an amended complaint no later than October 27, 2023. Finally, Defendants’ note 

regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority / Potential Mootness is of no moment as 

this Court may “take judicial notice of documents filed in other court cases.” See Hayden v. Vance, 

708 Fed. App’x 976, 979 (11th Cir. 2017).

Dated: October 6, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2023 Page 2 of 5
3

For Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

William A. Burck (pro hac vice)

Derek L. Shaffer (pro hac vice)

Alexander J. Merton (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 538-8334

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com

ajmerton@quinnemanuel.com

John F. Bash (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

300 West 6th St, Suite 2010

Austin, TX 78701

(737) 667-6100

johnbash@quinnemanuel.com

Jason D. Sternberg (Florida Bar No. 72887)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

2601 South Bayshore Dr, Suite 1550

Miami, FL 33133

(305) 402-4880

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Christopher D. Kercher (pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,

New York, New York 10010

(212) 849-7000 

christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com

For Defendant

DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

By: /s/ Stephanie A. Sasarak

MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

Maryland Bar No. 0712110235

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2023 Page 3 of 5
4

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 14198

Washington, D.C. 20044

214-880-9779 (v) | 214-880-9741 (f)

Mary.E.Smith@usdoj.gov

Stephanie.A.Sasarak@usdoj.gov

Of counsel:

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

United States Attorney

Southern District of Florida

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2023 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 6th day of October, 2023, I filed a copy of the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send 

notification to all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

Jason D. Sternberg

Fla. Bar. No. 72887

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2023 Page 5 of 5