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 and U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

 Defendants.

JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

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

respective undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), Local Rule 16.1(b), and this

Court’s December 16, 2022 Order Requiring Discovery and Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 15),

met by videoconference on May 15, 2023, and hereby submit this Joint Scheduling Report:

I. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY LOCAL RULE 16.1(B)(2)

A. Likelihood of Settlement: The United States’ position is there is no evidence to

show that the IRS wrongfully inspected or disclosed plaintiff’s return information,

and as such, settlement is unlikely at the present time. If the United States’ position

changes, the Parties are open to resolving this matter amicably through settlement,

if possible.

B. Likelihood of Appearance in the Action of Additional Parties: The Parties do

not currently anticipate any additional parties, but reserve the right to add any

additional parties subject to the deadline to add parties that may be set by the Court.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 1 of 8
2

C. Discovery Schedule: The Parties propose the pretrial discovery schedule set forth

below based on the Standard Track Cases set forth in Attachment B of this Court’s

December 16, 2022 Order (ECF No. 15).

D. Proposals for the Formulation and Simplification of Issues: Currently, the

Parties do not have any proposals for the formulation and simplification of any

issues. As the case progresses the Parties will, if appropriate, confer in good faith

to discuss proposals for the formulation and simplification of issues in this case.

E. The Necessity or Desirability of Amendments to the Pleadings: Subject to the

court’s ruling on the United States’ motion to dismiss, the Parties do not currently

anticipate the necessity to amend the pleadings, but reserve the right to amend the

pleadings subject to the deadline to amend that may be set by the Court.

F. Admissions and Stipulations To Avoid Unnecessary Proof And Advanced

Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence: Subject to the court’s ruling on the United

States’ motion to dismiss, and the outcome of any potential discovery dispute

discussed in Section K below, the Parties will work together to obtain admissions

and stipulations that will avoid unnecessary proof at trial and advance rulings from

the Court on admissibility of evidence.

G. Suggestions for the Avoidance of Unnecessary Proof and of Cumulative

Evidence: Subject to the court’s ruling on the United States’ motion to dismiss,

and the outcome of any potential discovery dispute discussed in Section K below,

the Parties will work together to obtain admissions and stipulations that will avoid

unnecessary proof and presentation of cumulative evidence at trial.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 2 of 8
3

H. Referral of Matters to Magistrate Judge: The Parties agree that all discovery

matters in this case may be referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan

Goodman (ECF No. 15, ¶ 6), but reserve the right to object to and appeal any such

decisions. The Parties do not consent to trial by a Magistrate Judge, and do not

consent to the disposition of dispositive pre-trial motions by a Magistrate Judge.

I. Preliminary Estimate of The Time Required for Trial: The Parties believe that

this matter will require 5 – 7 days of trial.

J. Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates: The Parties request that the pretrial

conference be scheduled in accordance with the schedules set forth below based on

the Standard Track Cases set forth in Attachment B of this Court’s December 16,

2022 Order (ECF No. 15).

K. Other Information Helpful to the court in Setting the Case for Status or

Pretrial Conference: The United States’ position is the existence or status of

investigations related to the allegations in Mr. Griffin’s complaint constitutes thirdparty return information that the United States is barred from disclosing. 26 U.S.C.

§ 6103(a), (b)(2)(A). If Mr. Griffin intends to serve discovery on the United States

about those matters, the United States will seek a status conference to discuss the

appropriate bounds of such discovery or, if necessary, a stay of the case.

II. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)(3)

A. Timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a): The Parties

stipulate and have agreed, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C), to exchange initial

disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) by June 26, 2023.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 3 of 8
4

B. Subject and timing of discovery:

 United States Position: The United States’ motion to dismiss may dispose of all

issues in this case, and except for initial disclosures, formal discovery should be

stayed until the Court rules on the motion. In the event the motion is denied, in

whole or in part, the United States maintains that 26 U.S.C. § 6103 prohibits it

from disclosing the existence, status, or facts related to any investigation of thirdparties who may be the source of ProPublica’s articles about Mr. Griffin. To

resolve this disagreement, the United States requests a hearing for the Court to

establish the bounds of discovery.

 Plaintiff’s Position: Because the Parties have conferred as required by Rule

26(f), Mr. Griffin is currently authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure to obtain discovery from the United States and elsewhere regarding

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to his claims and the government’s

defenses which are proportional to the needs of this case, particularly relevant

information regarding his own tax return information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)

and (d)(1). As courts in this District repeatedly recognize, in the Eleventh

Circuit “there is no general rule that discovery be stayed while a pending motion

to dismiss is resolved,”1 and in fact, “[m]otions to stay discovery pending ruling

on a dispositive motion are generally disfavored in this district.”2 To the extent

the United States objects to the timing and/or scope of any yet-to-be-served

discovery, the United States should move for such relief with an appropriate

motion once such discovery has been served.

 Jointly: The Parties propose the pretrial discovery schedule set forth below

based on the Standard Track Cases set forth in Attachment B of this Court’s

December 16, 2022 Order (ECF No. 15), and the Parties do not foresee a need

to conduct discovery in phases.

C. Discovery of ESI: Currently, the Parties do not anticipate any issues regarding the

disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information.

D. Claims of Privilege or Protection as Trial-Preparation Materials: The Parties

will confer regarding the designation of materials as privileged or otherwise

1

See Reilly v. Amy's Kitchen, Inc., 2013 WL 3929709, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2013)

(citing Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 2012 WL 5471793, at *3 (S.D.Fla. Nov.9, 2012) (Scola, J.)).

2

See Cuhaci v. Kouri Grp., LP, 540 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1187 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (citing cases).

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 4 of 8
5

confidential as matters arise, and the Parties will endeavor to prepare a stipulation

and confidentiality agreement to address such issues as necessary.

E. Changes To Or Limitations On Discovery Under The Applicable Rules: The

Parties plan to conduct discovery as permitted by the applicable rules and currently

do not foresee a need for any further changes or limitations thereto.

F. Any Other Orders That The Court Should Issue Under Rule 26(c) Or Under

Rule 16(b) And (c): There are no other orders that this Court should issue under

Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c) at this time.

III. PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Date or Weeks After Entry

of Scheduling Order Event

5 weeks Deadline to join additional parties or to amend pleadings.

14 weeks Deadline to file joint interim status report.

25 weeks

Deadline to file Proposed Order Scheduling Mediation,

setting forth the name of the mediator, and the date, time, and

location of the mediation, consistent with the Order of

Referral to Mediation (which immediately follows this

scheduling order).

31 weeks

Deadline to complete all fact discovery.

Deadline to submit joint notice indicating whether the parties

consent to jurisdiction before the designated magistrate judge

for purposes of final disposition.

Deadline to exchange expert witness summaries/reports

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). Rebuttal

disclosures are permitted and must conform to the deadline

set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii).

33 weeks Deadline for the filing of all dispositive motions.

35 weeks

Deadline to complete mediation, consistent with the Order of

Referral to Mediation (which immediately follows this

scheduling order).

40 weeks Deadline to complete all expert discovery.

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 5 of 8
6

8 weeks BEFORE calendar

call

Deadline for the filing of pretrial motions, including motions

in limine and Daubert motions.

4 weeks BEFORE the trial

date

Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation pursuant to Local

Rule 16.1(e) and pretrial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3).

2 weeks BEFORE the trial

date

Deadline to file proposed jury instructions (if the matter is set

for a jury trial) or proposed findings of fact and conclusions

of law (if the matter is set for a bench trial) pursuant to Local

Rule 16.1(k).

49 weeks (approximate)

Two-week trial period commences (calendar call will be

scheduled on the Tuesday before the trial period).

Date: May 30, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

For Plaintiff

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

William A. Burck (admitted pro hac vice)

Derek L. Shaffer (admitted pro hac vice)

Alexander J. Merton (admitted 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

Christopher D. Kercher (admitted pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, New York 10010

(212) 849-7000

christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com

John F. Bash, III (admitted pro hac vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

300 West 6th St, Suite 2010

Austin, TX 78701

(737) 667-6100

johnbash@quinnemanuel.com

Case 1:22-cv-24023-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 6 of 8
7

Jason D. Sternberg (Florida Bar No. 72887)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1550

Miami, FL 33133

(786) 850 3607

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

For Defendant

DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

By: /s/ Stephanie A. Sasarak

 Elizabeth N. Duncan

ELIZABETH N. DUNCAN

Virginia Bar No. 90685

ZACHARY A. GRAY

California Bar No. 291376

STEPHANIE A. SASARAK

Maryland Bar No. 1012160096

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 14198

Washington, D.C. 20044

202-514-6546 (v) | 202-514-4963 (f)

Elizabeth.N.Duncan@usdoj.gov

Zachary.A.Gray@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 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 7 of 8
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 30th day of May, 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 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2023 Page 8 of 8