Griffin v. Internal Revenue Service
1:22-cv-24023
S.D. Fla.Jun 10, 2024Background
- Kenneth C. Griffin filed a motion to seal certain documents (including excerpts of a deposition and government correspondence) in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Department of Treasury, invoking a stipulated protective order and local rules.
- The Government, not Griffin, sought continued confidentiality of the materials, particularly certain deposition transcript excerpts of Charles Edward Littlejohn (a former IRS contractor who accessed and disclosed tax information).
- The dispute centered around whether the materials qualified as confidential under the stipulated protective order and Rule 26(c) due to sensitive IRS system details and taxpayer information.
- Griffin argued for public access and expedited court resolution, citing the discovery deadline and inefficiency of the stipulated dispute process.
- The court was tasked not with a merits decision, but whether good cause existed to maintain certain portions under seal, taking into account the balance of public access and confidentiality in discovery materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to seal certain discovery materials (Littlejohn's deposition, govt correspondence, etc.) | Griffin: The materials should be public; confidentiality is unwarranted; expedited ruling is needed. | Government: The materials (esp. deposition excerpts) reveal non-party taxpayer info and IRS system vulnerabilities; good cause exists to keep them sealed. | Granted in part; denied in part. Some excerpts to remain sealed; some to be disclosed or redacted as per court guidance. |
| Application of protective order procedure | Griffin: Sought to temporarily file under seal but bypass full procedure for speed; wanted govt. to adhere to procedural hearing deadline. | Government: Submitted a merits-based response per court order rather than strict adherence to procedure. | Court upheld its order for a merits response, found Griffin could not object to that approach. |
| Definition and scope of 'return information' under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 as applied to the deposition | Griffin: Government did not sufficiently show deposition content fits 'return information.' | Government: Deposition reveals protected return info and IRS vulnerabilities; cites broad statutory scope. | Court rejected most of Govt's § 6103 argument as underdeveloped; allowed sealing only for specific, well-supported passages. |
| Public right of access to discovery materials attached to motions to compel | Griffin: Discovery materials should be public where possible. | Government: Emphasized need for confidentiality due to IRS security concerns. | Court applied Eleventh Circuit precedent: no public right of access for discovery motions, but limited sealing to genuine security concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (held that material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access)
- Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007) (need for public access to discovery is low because discovery assists only trial prep)
- Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985) (court discretion in protective orders requires good cause and balancing of interests)