Griffin v. Internal Revenue Service, 1:22-cv-24023

The case arises from the public disclosure of confidential IRS tax return information of Kenneth C. Griffin by Charles Edward Littlejohn to ProPublica.
Griffin seeks to hold the IRS and the U.S. Treasury liable for the disclosure, specifically arguing liability under 26 U.S.C. § 7431 and, initially, the Privacy Act.
Only Griffin's § 7431 claim advances, with Judge Scola dismissing his Privacy Act count and reserving the question of whether additional theories in his § 7431 claim survive.
Griffin moves to compel the government to produce investigative files about Littlejohn and communications between him and specified IRS personnel.
The government argues various privileges and statutory protections (26 U.S.C. § 6103, law enforcement investigatory privilege, Privacy Act, attorney-client, and work product doctrines) and claims the discovery is burdensome, irrelevant, or harassing.
The court rules on the discovery dispute, partially granting and partially denying Griffin’s motion.

Issue	Griffin’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Applicability of 26 U.S.C. § 6103 to Investigative Files	Files not covered because they were part of DOJ, not TIGTA, investigation; or, if covered, are discoverable under § 6103(h)(4)(A) exception	TIGTA investigative file and portions of the DOJ file are “return information” protected by § 6103	TIGTA files and DOJ portions obtained exclusively from TIGTA are protected; § 6103(h)(4)(A) exception does not apply
Law Enforcement Investigatory Privilege	No ongoing criminal investigation so privilege inapplicable; no sensitive techniques at issue, material needed for claims	Applies to investigative files protecting techniques, sources, and methods	Does not apply to non-TIGTA portions of DOJ file; government failed to make adequate showing; privilege would not prevent disclosure here
Privacy Act Bar on Disclosure	Privacy Act does not bar civil discovery and need outweighs harm; protection possible via confidentiality order	Privacy Act bars disclosure; plaintiff has no legitimate need and potential harm to Littlejohn exists (pending appeal)	Privacy Act does not prevent discovery; Griffin’s need outweighs speculative harm to Littlejohn
Proportionality/Relevance of Discovery	Materials are narrowly tailored and crucial to liability theory	Discovery is burdensome, already produced much, and Griffin not using prior production	Discovery request is proportional and relevant; production ordered for subset of custodians

Ryan v. United States, 74 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1996) (discusses scope of "return information" and requirements for § 6103 application)
Baskin v. United States, 135 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 1998) (IRS special agent's actions do not automatically create "return information" under § 6103)
Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 734 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1984) (Privacy Act court order exception requires balancing need vs. harm)