Upload
equality-case-files
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
1/106
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORMARRIAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
Civ. No. 13-cv-1225-JCC/IDD
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM
MATTHEW S. MEISEL AND FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37, Plaintiff National
Organization for Marriage, Inc. (NOM),through counsel, submits this Motion to Compel
Production of Documents From Matthew S. Meisel and forIn CameraReview, a non-party fact
witness, and respectfully requests that this Court compel Mr. Meisel to search for and produce all
documents responsive toNOMs discovery requests that do not implicate his Fifth Amendment
right to self-incrimination as determined by this Courts in camerareview. Specifically, NOM
moves the Court to produce the following documents:
1. Copies of NOMs 2007 and 2008 IRS Form 990s that Mr. Meisel received from the IRSin response to the IRS Form 4506-A he submitted to the IRS in or around January 2011.
2. A copy of the IRS Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt orPolitical Organization IRS Form, Mr. Meisel submitted to the IRS in or around January
2011 to obtain copies of NOMs tax returns.
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 180
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
2/106
2
3. The IRS 3983C Letter that was sent to Mr. Meisel along with copies of NOMs 2007 and2008 IRS Form 990s and in response to the IRS Form 4506-A Mr. Meisel submitted to
the IRS.
4. Documents constituting communications between Mr. Meisel and the individualidentified by Mr. Meisel as his Promising Conduit.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support, the Court should grant
the Motion.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of February, 2014.
/s/ Jason Torchinsky
Jason Torchinsky (Va. 47481)Shawn Toomey Sheehy (Va. 82630)
Holtzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC
45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100
Warrenton, VA 20186(540) 341-8808 (telephone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)
[email protected]@hvjlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
John C. Eastman (Cal. 193726)*Anthony T. Caso (Cal. 88561)*
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
c/o Chapman University School of LawOne University Drive
Orange, CA 92866
(877) 855-3330 x2 (telephone)(714) 844-4817 (fax)
[email protected] for Plaintiff
Cleta Mitchell, of counsel
(D.C. 433386)*
William E. Davis, of counsel
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 181
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
3/106
3
(D.C. 280057)*
Mathew D. Gutierrez, of counsel
(Fla. 0094014)*Kaylan L. Phillips (Ind. 30405-84)*
Noel H. Johnson (Wisc. 1068004)*
ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION209 West Main StreetPlainfield, IN 46168
(317) 203-5599 (telephone)
(888) 815-5641 (fax)[email protected]
[email protected]@actrightlegal.org
Counsel for Plaintiff
* AdmittedPro Hac Vice
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 182
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
4/106
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
MARRIAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
Civ. No. 13-cv-1225-JCC/IDD
Local Rule 37(e) Meet and Confer Certification
Counsel for the parties conferred in a good faith attempt to resolve Mr. Meisels
discovery objections as follows:
1.
Phone conferences between counsel for NOM and counsel for Mr. Meisel on February 6,
February 13, and February 20, 2014.
2. Phone conference between counsel for NOM and counsel for Defendant on February 20,2014.
NOM and counsel for Mr. Meisel were unable to resolve their disputes. Counsel for Defendant
stated that Defendant takes no position on this motion.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of February, 2014.
/s/ Jason TorchinskyJason Torchinsky (Va. 47481)
Shawn Toomey Sheehy (Va. 82630)
Holtzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-1 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 183
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
5/106
Warrenton, VA 20186
(540) 341-8808 (telephone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiff
John C. Eastman (Cal. 193726)*
Anthony T. Caso (Cal. 88561)*
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudencec/o Chapman University School of Law
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866(877) 855-3330 x2 (telephone)
(714) 844-4817 (fax)
[email protected] for Plaintiff
Cleta Mitchell, of counsel(D.C. 433386)*
William E. Davis, of counsel
(D.C. 280057)*Mathew D. Gutierrez, of counsel
(Fla. 0094014)*
Kaylan L. Phillips (Ind. 30405-84)*Noel H. Johnson (Wisc. 1068004)*
ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION
209 West Main StreetPlainfield, IN 46168
(317) 203-5599 (telephone)
(888) 815-5641 (fax)
[email protected]@foley.com
[email protected]@actrightlegal.org
Counsel for Plaintiff
* Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-1 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 184
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
6/106
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORMARRIAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
Civ. No. 13-cv-1225-JCC/IDD
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS FROM MATTHEW S. MEISEL AND FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
Plaintiff National Organization for Marriage, Inc. (NOM),respectfully NOTICES a
hearing on its Motion to Compel Production of Documents From Matthew S. Meisel and forIn
CameraReview for Friday, February 28, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of February, 2014.
/s/ Jason Torchinsky_______
Jason Torchinsky (Va. 47481)Shawn Toomey Sheehy (Va. 82630)
Holtzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC
45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100Warrenton, VA 20186
(540) 341-8808 (telephone)(540) 341-8809 (fax)
[email protected]@hvjlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-2 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 185
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
7/106
2
John C. Eastman (Cal. 193726)*
Anthony T. Caso (Cal. 88561)*Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
c/o Chapman University School of Law
One University DriveOrange, CA 92866(877) 855-3330 x2 (telephone)
(714) 844-4817 (fax)
[email protected]@chapman.edu
Counsel for Plaintiff
Cleta Mitchell, of counsel(D.C. 433386)*
William E. Davis, of counsel
(D.C. 280057)*Mathew D. Gutierrez, of counsel
(Fla. 0094014)*
Kaylan L. Phillips (Ind. 30405-84)*
Noel H. Johnson (Wisc. 1068004)*ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION
209 West Main Street
Plainfield, IN 46168(317) 203-5599 (telephone)
(888) 815-5641 (fax)
[email protected]@foley.com
[email protected] for Plaintiff
* AdmittedPro Hac Vice
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-2 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 186
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
8/106
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORMARRIAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
Civ. No. 13-cv-1225-JCC/IDD
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM
MATTHEW S. MEISEL AND FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
This case centers on the unauthorized disclosure of confidential tax return information
namely the confidential donor list of a non-profit organization, Plaintiff National Organization
for Marriage (NOM). At issue here are the documents involved in making the request to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the public information available about NOMstax return,
the method by which the information was disclosed by the IRS, and the specific information that
was actually disclosed. The Defendant (hereafter, the Government)has been unable to produce
the forms submitted to it to request the tax returns, is unable to produce the actual transmittal
letters sent out to the requester, and is unable to produce evidence of the specific documents
transmitted.
1
1 Specifically, the Government provided evidence showing that the clerk involved in thedisclosure of NOMs tax returns here printed the unredacted original 2008 tax return and theunredacted amended 2008 tax return within several minutes of each other, but maintains that the
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 187
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
9/106
2
As a result of the lack of availability of this information from the Government, NOM
(and the Government) sought the requested information from the person the Government has
identified as the requester, Matthew S. Meisel, who submitted a request for NOMs tax returns to
the IRS and receivedNOMsconfidential tax return information. To date, Mr. Meisel, the third-
party witness in this case, has declined to produce these highly relevant documents and related
documents in his possession, citing to his Fifth Amendment act of productionprivilege against
self-incrimination.
With respect to the requested documents, Mr. Meisels invocation of that privilege is
improper. For the reasons explained below, NOM respectfully requests that this Court compel
the production of requested documents from Mr. Meisel. In the alternative, for any of the
requested documents whose very production may arguably be testimonial in nature, NOM
requests that Mr. Meisel produce those documents, in camera, so the Court may properly
determine whether their production (as opposed to their content) presents a real and substantial
risk of self-incrimination.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an action against the Government seeking damages pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7431
for the unlawful inspection and disclosure of NOMs tax return and tax return information by
agents of the IRS in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
NOM is a tax-exempt organization that was founded in 2007 pursuant to Section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. (Verified Complaint (VC) 8.) As a tax-exempt
organization, NOM is required to file an IRS Form 990 annually with the IRS. See 26 U.S.C.
clerk mailed only the unredacted amended 2008 tax return without any documents, evidence ordeposition testimony to support its assertions.
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID# 188
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
10/106
3
6033. Schedule B to Form 990 is a schedule of donors who have contributed $5,000 or more
during the reporting period. Certain portions of NOMs Form 990 must be made available for
public inspection. However, Schedule B, in unredacted form, is filed solely with the IRS and is
not a publicly available document. 26 U.S.C. 6104(b).
Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6103, tax returns and return information are confidentialand
their inspection and public disclosure is prohibited except as authorized by Section 6103. Title
26, U.S.C. 7431 provides taxpayers a cause of action for damages against the Government for
knowing or negligent unauthorized inspection or disclosure of tax return information in violation
of 26 U.S.C. 6103. For each negligent disclosure or inspection, a taxpayer may recover actual
damages or statutory damages of $1,000. If the inspection or disclosure is wilful or grossly
negligent, a taxpayer may be entitled to punitive damages.
In March 2012, NOMs amended 2008 Schedule B2 appeared on the websites of the
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Huffington Post. (VC 14-16.) HRCs mission is
directly opposed to NOMs mission. On each page of the amended 2008 Schedule B were
official, internal IRS markings,3which indicated that the source of the published document was
the IRS itself. (VC 23.)
At NOMs request, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
conducted an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of NOMs unredacted 2008 Schedule
B. (VC 51.) The results and conclusions of TIGTAs investi gation were not shared with NOM
until after the complaint was filed in this matter. (VC 52.) Consequently, NOM was forced to
2For the 2008 tax year, NOM filed both an original and an amended tax return. The version ofthe tax return posted online was from the Amended 2008 tax return.
3The markings on the 2008 Schedule B published by HRC were originally obscured, but NOMwas able to remove the obstructions.
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 21 PageID# 189
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
11/106
4
undertake significant and costly effortsincluding the filing and administrative appeals of five
Freedom of Information Act requests and one Privacy Act Requestto obtain information about
the illegal disclosure of its donor information, but TIGTA and the IRS consistently withheld
completely or redacted all materially relevant information concerning TIGTAs investigation in
response to those requests until after this lawsuit was filed. (VC 53-55.) According to TIGTA,
26 U.S.C. 6103 prohibited it from disclosing to NOM any information concerning its
investigation, or even disclosing the existence of such investigation regarding the unlawful
disclosure of NOMs unredacted 2008 Schedule B. (VC 63.)
Not until October 30, 2013 did NOM learn the identity of the individual to whom its tax
returns were disclosed. As part of its investigation into the targeting of conservative applicants
for tax-exempt status (VC 88-90), the House Ways and Means Committee revealed to the
media that it had identified that individual as Matthew Meisel, a former employee of Bain &
Company, the company where former Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney served as
interim CEO in the early 1990s. See Eliana Johnson, Investigation IDs IRS Leaker, National
Review Online, Oct. 30, 2013, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation-ids-
irs-leaker-eliana-johnson. The Ways and Means Committee also revealed that Mr. Meisel
furnished to HRC the copy of NOMs 2008 Schedule B he received from the IRS.Id. According
to communications produced by HRC in discovery, Mr. Meisel is a self-described armchair
activist with a small interest in investigating NOM. Document Production of Human Rights
Campaign at 2 (attached as Exhibit A, hereafter, HRC Production).
As part of its initial disclosures in this action, the Government identified an IRS
processing clerk in Ogden, Utah as one of the individuals who is likely to have discoverable
information. Initial Disclosures of Defendant United States of America at 3 (attached as Exhibit
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 21 PageID# 190
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
12/106
5
B, hereafter, Initial Disclosures).According to the Government, in January 2011, that named
IRS agent received an IRS Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt or
Political Organization IRS Form,from Mr. Meisel, who requested copies of NOMs 2007 and
2008 tax returns, IRS Form 990s.4Discovery Response at 3 (c)-(d), 7 (q). The named IRS
agent then accessed and printed the requested documents, including the original and amended
versions of NOMs 2008 Form 990s. Id. at 7 (o). The named IRS agent also accessed and
printed both a redacted and unredacted version of NOMs original and amended 2008 Schedule
B, id. at 7 (r). The Government alleges that the named IRS agent then failed to redact the
names and addresses of [NOMs] contributors, even though redacting that information was her
responsibility and normal practice and procedure, and was required to satisfy the Internal
Revenue Code and the IRSpolicies and procedures.Id. at 8 (s).
According to the Government, the named IRS agent then caused the IRSs systems to
create a Form 3983C letter, which is a typical letter used in responding to Form 4506-A
requests. Id. at 8 (u). The named IRS agent then sent photocopied versions of NOMs 2007
and amended 2008 Form 990 to the IRS CRX Unit, which then printed the 3983C letter, and
assembled it with NOMs tax returns.Id. at 8 (v). The named IRS then mailed these documents
to Mr. Meisel. Id. at 8 (w). Even though the named IRS agent accessed and printed NOMs
4According to the Government, when a tax return such as an IRS Form 990 is accessed and
printed from the IRS database system, a unique identifying number is created as a watermark,which is embedded into the printed copy of the tax return. The identifying number correspondsto the specific IRS employee who accessed and printed the tax return. Governments Objectionsand Responses to Plaintiffs First Discovery Requests at 7 (a)-(b) (attached as Exhibit C,hereafter Discovery Response). The identifying number that appears on the 2008 Schedule Bthat was published on HRCs website allowed the Government to identify the IRS agent whoaccessed and printed that document.
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 5 of 21 PageID# 191
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
13/106
6
original 2008 Form 990, including the Schedule B, the Government alleges that the IRS did not
produce that document to Mr. Meisel.Id. at 8 (t).
According to the Government, the named IRS agent does not recall doing any of these
things. See, e.g., id. at 6 (g) (the IRS clerk does not recall the request for Plaintiffs 2008 Form
990, nor does she recall processing the request). Moreover, the Government has been unable to
produce a copy of the IRS Form 4506-A it claims Mr. Meisel submitted to the IRS, or the 3983C
letter it claims it mailed to Mr. Meisel in response to his request for NOMs tax returns. Nor has
the Government produced copies of the tax returns accessed and printed by the named IRS agent,
or copies of the tax returns mailed to Mr. Meisel by the IRS. The Government claims all of these
documents have been destroyed in accordance with IRS procedure.
As part of this action, NOM and the Government served Mr. Meisel with a subpoena to
produce documents, which asked Mr. Meisel to produce, inter alia,
1. All documents that you filed with, sent to, or received from the InternalRevenue Service includ[ing] copies of NOMs Form 990s, any other taxreturns, documents revealing the identifies of NOMs donors, IRS Forms4506-A requesting informationpertaining to NOM [and] IRS Form 3983-Cletters you received from the IRS.
2. All documents that you filed with, sent to, or received from the IRS that relateto any requests you made for NOMs 2007 Form 990. This would include IRSForms 4506-A, NOMs 2007 Form 990 [and] IRS Form 3983-C letters youreceived from the IRS.
3. All documents constituting or referencing communications between or amongyou and any third partyincluding, but not limited to the Human Rights
Campaign that relate to NOMs Complaint or the IRS disclosu re oralleged inspection ofNOMs 2008 Form 990.
Subpoena to Produce Documents Issued by Defendant United States of America to Matthew S.
Meisel (Dec. 23, 2013) at 8 (attached as Exhibit D, hereafter Governments Document
Subpoena).NOM requested that Mr. Meisel also produce to NOM all documents responsive to
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 21 PageID# 192
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
14/106
7
the Governments requests. Subpoena to Produce Documents Issued by Plaintiff NOM to
Matthew S. Meisel (Jan. 7, 2013) at 9 (attached as Exhibit E, hereafter NOMs Document
Subpoena). Additionally, NOM requested that Mr. Meisel produce all documents constituting
communications between you and [named IRS agent], David Hamilton, and/or any other current
or former employee of the IRS, the Treasury Department, or any other federal agency that relate
to the [NOM],NOMs tax returns or return information, and/or NOMs donors.Id.
In response, Mr. Meisel produced thirty-six pages of documents, but withheld an
unknown number of documents based on his belief that the documents are subject to the act of
production privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See
Document Production of Matthew S. Meisel (Jan. 16, 2013) at 2 (attached as Exhibit F, hereafter,
Meisel Production). Mr. Meisel did not produce any of the documents the Government claims
he sent to and received from the IRS, including copies of NOMs tax returns, the IRS Form
4506-A, and the 3983C letter. Mr. Meisel did not produce a privilege log for these documents,
asserting that such a log would also implicate his Fifth Amendment rights.
ARGUMENT
The instant motion was necessitated by Mr. Meisels refusal to produce documents
known by the parties to exist and to be in his possession. As the Supreme Court explains, the
production of such documents does not rise to the level of testimonial, and therefore does
implicate any Fifth Amendment rights. Consequently, Mr. Meisel has no valid reason to
withhold these documents.
Moreover, a sustainable assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege requires more than
compelled testimony; it requires that testimony to be incriminating. Whether testimony is
incriminating is a determination made by this Court, not Mr. Meisel. Should this Court find that
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 7 of 21 PageID# 193
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
15/106
8
the mere act of production of certain documents (as opposed to the content contained in those
documents) would be testimonial in nature, NOM respectfully requests that this Court compel
Mr. Meisel to produce, in camera, those documents the mere act of production of which he
believes pose a real and substantial risk of incrimination. Any document for which Mr. Meisel
cannot sufficiently demonstrate such a risk must be produced.
I. Mr. Meisel Has Inappropriately Invoked the Act of Production Privilege toWithhold Documents.
[T]he Fifth Amendment protects the person asserting the privilege only from compelled
self-incrimination. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 610 (1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis
in original). A subpoena that demands production of documents, however, does not compel
oral testimony, id. at 610-11, and therefore a person may be required to produce specific
documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the
creation of those documents was not compelledwithin the meaning of the privilege. United
States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). In other words, documents may not be withheld
solely on the grounds that the documents contents will lead to incrimination because the
contents of those records are not privileged. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612; see also id. n.10 (If the
party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege has voluntarily compiled the document, no
compulsion is present and the contents of the document are not privileged.).5
5
Mr. Meisel does not claim of any of the documents he has withheld was compelled within themeaning of the Fifth Amendment. However, because of Mr. Meisels sweeping assertion of hisFifth Amendment rights against production of any additional documentsincluding a privilegelogNOM is unable to sufficiently assess the basis for Mr. Meisels assertion of his FifthAmendment rights. For this reason, NOM requests Mr. Meisel produce, in camera, a privilegelog and the documents he believes are properly withheld under the act-of-production privilege sothat the Court may determine the validity of his objections.
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 8 of 21 PageID# 194
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
16/106
9
While the contents of documents are not privileged, the act of producing them may be
privileged under certain narrow circumstanceswhere the act of production itself implicitly
communicate[s] statements of fact,such as the witnesss admission that the papers existed,
were in his possession or control, and were authentic. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 & n.19 (citation
omitted). However, if the existence of the requested documents is a foregone conclusion and
therefore the production of documents adds little or nothing to the sum total of the [requesting
partys] information by conceding that he in fact has the papers, the Fifth Amendment is not
implicated because [t]he question is not of testimony but of surrender.Fisher v. United States,
425 U.S. 391, 411 (1976). In other words, [w]hether an act of production is sufficiently
testimonial to implicate the Fifth Amendmentdepends on the [requesting partys] knowledge
regarding the documents before they are produced. United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 319-
320 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (summarizingHubbell andFisher).
The requesting party is not required to have actual knowledge of the existence and
location of each and every responsive document.Doe v. United States (In re Grand Jury
Subpoena), 383 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ponds, 454 F.3d at 325(Fisher does not
demand that the subpoena name every scrap of paper that is produced.). Rather, the requesting
party must merely establish its knowledge of the existence, possession, and authenticity of the
subpoenaed documents with reasonable particularitybefore the communication inherent in the
act of production can be considered a foregone conclusion. Ponds, 454 F.3d at 320 (quoting
United States v. Hubbell, 167 F.3d 552, 579-80 (D.C. Cir. 1999), affd byHubbell, 530 U.S. 27);
see also Doe, 383 F.3d at 910 (same); United States v. Doe (In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces
Tecum), 670 F.3d 1335, 1344 (11th Cir. 2012) (same). In other words, [p]roduction may not be
refused if the [requesting party] can demonstrate with reasonable particularity that it knows of
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 9 of 21 PageID# 195
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
17/106
10
the existence and location of subpoenaed documents.In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum
Dated October 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993). Ultimately, whether the act of producing
responsive documents is sufficiently testimonial that the Fifth Amendment applies, depend[s]
on the facts and circumstances of particular cases.Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410.
A. Mr. Meisel Must Produce Documents NOM and the Government Describedwith Reasonable Particularity.
Under the standards recited above, Mr. Meisel may not withhold documents of which
NOM or the Government can demonstrate knowledge with reasonable particularity. For the
following reasons, NOM believes Mr. Meisel has improperly withheld the following documents:
1. Copies of NOMs 2007 and 2008IRS Form 990s that Mr. Meisel Receivedfrom the IRS in response to the IRS Form 4506-A He Submitted to the
IRS in or Around January 2011.
On or before October 30, 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee identified Mr.
Meisel as the individual to whom the IRS disclosed NOMs unredacted 2008 Schedule B. See
Johnson,suprap. 4. Shortly thereafter, the Government disclosed in its initial disclosures that a
request had been made by Mr. Meisel to the IRS for copies of NOMs 2008 IRS Form 990,
which includes NOMs Schedule B. Initial Disclosures at 1, 3.
The Government has since stated that Mr. Meisel obtained NOMs 2008 Schedule B by
submitting to the IRS an IRS Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or Copy of Exempt
or Political Organization IRS Form, around January, 2011. Governments Objections and
Responses to Plaintiffs First Discovery Requests at 4 (attached as Exhibit C, hereafter
Discovery Response). Mr. Meisel also requested and received NOMs 2007 Form 990, which
the IRS produced to Mr. Meisel at the same time it produced the 2008 Form 990, along with the
unredacted 2008 Schedule B.Id. at 8 (q). In short, the requested documents were prepared by
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 10 of 21 PageID# 196
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
18/106
11
and given to Mr. Meisel by the Government. Further, HRC, a third-party fact witness, has
produced to NOM copies of emails revealing that Mr. Meisel furnished to HRC a copy of
NOMs unredacted 2008 Schedule B, which HRC posted to its website. HRC Production at 2-6.
Based on the foregoing, the existence of copies of NOMs 2007 and 2008 IRS Form 990s
and Mr. Meisels possession of the same is a foregone conclusion. Fisher,425 U.S. at 411.
These documents were not only described with reasonable particularity, but were specifically
requested by NOM and also by the Government, which possessed and prepared the requested
documents before mailing them to Mr. Meisel. Cf. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410-411 (admitting the
existence and possession of papers that belong to and were prepared by another party does not
rise to the level of testimony within the protection of the Fifth Amendment);6see also Ponds,
454 F.3d at 325 (government must have known of the existence of correspondence
because it was a party to that correspondence). Mr. Meisel adds little or nothing to the sum
total of the Governments information by conceding that he in fact has the papers. Id. at 411.
Consequently, these documents should have been produced either in response to Governments
Requests for Production (1) and (2) suprap. 6 (specifically requesting NOMs 2007 and 2008
Form 990s) and/or NOMs Requests for Production (1) and (2) supra p. 7 (requesting, in part,
documents requested by the Government and correspondence with IRS). See United
6Fisher involved the investigation of two taxpayers for tax violations. 425 U.S. at 393-94.During the investigation, the taxpayers obtained from their accountants documents used inpreparing their tax returns and gave the documents to their lawyers. See id.at 394. The
government then sought to subpoena the records. The Court concluded it was doubtful thatimplicitly admitting the existence and possession of the papers rises to the level of testimonywithin the protection of the Fifth Amendment where [t]he papers belong to the accountant,
were prepared by him, and are the kind usually prepared by an accountant working on the taxreturns of his client.Id. at 411. As inFisher, so here: The existence and location of the papersare a foregone conclusion and [Mr. Meisel] adds little or nothing to the sum total of theGovernments information by conceding that he in fact has the papers.Id.
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 11 of 21 PageID# 197
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
19/106
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
20/106
13
2. A Copy of the IRS Form 4506-A, Request for Public Inspection or Copyof Exempt or Political Organization IRS Form, Mr. Meisel Submitted to
the IRS in or Around January 2011 to Obtain Copies of NOMs Tax
Returns.
IRS Form 4506-A is the standard and only form used to request from the IRS copies of
the tax returns filed by tax-exempt organizations. According to the IRS, a completed 4506-A
form may be mailed or faxed to the IRS. See Instructions for Form 4506-A, July 2013, available
athttp://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i4506a.pdf.
As explained, the Governments initial disclosures revealed to NOM that a request had
been made to the IRS for copies of its tax returns. Governments Initial Disclosures at 3. Prior to
that revelation, it was reported that Mr. Meisel received from the IRS copies of NOMs 2008
Schedule B. See Johnson, supra at p. 4. According to the Government, Mr. Meisel obtained
NOMs tax returns by submitting an IRS Form 4506-A, through which he requested copies of
NOMs 2007 and 2008 Form 990s. See Discovery Response at 4 (d) (The United States
contends that Matthew Meisel requested Plaintiffs 2008 Form 990 via an IRS Form 4506-A
around January, 2011.); see also id. at 7 (c), 8 (n), (q), (w). In short, the IRS previously
possessed a copy of the document now requested from Mr. Meisel.
For the reasons explainedsuprapart I.A.1., the existence, possession, and authenticity of
IRS Form 4506-A is a foregone conclusion. Based on parties previous knowledgeand in the
case of the Government, its possession,Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410-411;Ponds, 454 F.3d at 325
the Form 4506-A form was specifically requested by the Government and NOM. Mr. Meisel
adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Governments information by conceding that he in
fact has the [form]. Id. at 411. Consequently, it should have been produced by Mr. Meisel in
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 13 of 21 PageID# 199
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
21/106
14
response to the specific requests for this document. See suprap. 6-7. Lang, 792 F. 2d at 1240-
1241. NOM respectfully requests that Mr. Meisel be compelled to produce this document.
3. The IRS 3983C Letter That was Sent to Mr. Meisel Along with Copies ofNOMs 2007 and 2008 IRS Form 990s and in Response to the IRS Form4506-A Mr. Meisel Submitted to the IRS.
According to the Government, a 3983C letter is a typical letter used in responding to
Form 4506-A requests. Discovery Response at 10 (u). Upon learning from the Government
and Congress that a request had been made for NOMs tax returns and that Mr. Meisel was the
recipient of that request, NOM was aware that Mr. Meisel also received a 3983C letter. The
Government, as the entity that prepared and provided the 3983C letter to Mr. Meisel, was aware
of this fact even earlier:
[T]he IRS clerk caused the IRS systems to create a Form 3983C letter, which is atypical letter used in responding to Form 4506-A requests. A 3983C letter wasprinted at the Ogden Service Center print center in response to an instructionentered into the IRS database system and sent to CRX, where it was assembledwith the relevant photocopied Forms, and put out for picking up by IRS mailclerks and mailed. [T]he IRS produced a 3983C letter and the 2007 Form 990and amended 2008 Form 990 in response to a Form 4506-A request. [T]heactual disclosure of Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990, unredacted Schedule Bto Mr. Meisel occurred in or around March, 2011.
Discovery Response at 8 (u)-(x).
For the reasons explainedsuprapart I.A.1., the existence, possession, and authenticity of
the 3983C letter is a foregone conclusion. Based on parties previous knowledgeand in the
case of the Government, its possession,Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410-411,Ponds, 454 F.3d at 325
the 3983C letter was specifically requested by the Government and NOM. Mr. Meisel adds little
or nothing to the sum total of the Governments information by conceding that he in fact has the
[letter].Id. at 411. Consequently, it should have been produced by Mr. Meisel in response to the
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 14 of 21 PageID# 200
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
22/106
15
specific requests for this document. See supra p. 6-7. Lang, 792 F. 2d at 1240-1241. NOM
respectfully requests that Mr. Meisel be compelled to produce this document.
4. Documents Constituting Communications Between Mr. Meisel and theIndividual Identified by Mr. Meisel as the Promising Conduit.
Included in the documents produced to NOM by Mr. Meisel is the chat log of a Gmail
conversation between Mr. Meisel and an individual named Ian Grady. Meisel Production at 3-9.
During that conversation, Mr. Meisel discusses his desire and ability to obtain a copy of NOMs
complete 990, with donor list and solicits Mr. Gradys advice as to how to further disseminate
it publicly when he obtained it. Id. at 7-9. Near the end of the conversation, Mr. Meisel states,
[I] dont actually have anything all that interesting on [NOM]but I have a promising
conduit.Id. at 9.
Mr. Meisels conversation with Mr. Grady took place on February 24, 2011,
approximately three weeks before Mr. Meisel received the copies of NOMs 2007 and 2008 IRS
Form 990s from the IRS that Government has claimed are the source of the disclosure of NOMs
unredacted Schedule B. Discovery Response at 4 (The United States contends that the
disclosure occurred on or around March 14, 2011.). The logical import of Mr. Meisels
conversation with Mr. Grady is that Mr. Meisel knew he would soon obtain NOMs unredacted
2008 Schedule B from the IRS because he was working with a promising conduit within the
agency that could disclose it to him in response to the request he had already submitted. And, in
fact, Mr. Meisel did receive a copy of NOMs unredacted 2008 Schedule B from the IRS in
response to his request less than three weeks later. Discovery Response at 4 (b).
Mr. Meisels revelation concerning his promising conduit comes as no surprise to
NOM, which has maintained that the disclosure of its 2008 Schedule B by the IRS was made
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 15 of 21 PageID# 201
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
23/106
16
willfully or as a result of gross negligence. (See, e.g., VC at 3.) It was on the basis of that belief
that NOM requested from Mr. Meisel copies of his communications with IRS and Treasury
Department employees that relate to NOM, its tax return and its donors. See suprap. 7.
NOMs request to Mr. Meisel for communications with IRS and Treasury Department
employees concerning NOMs tax return information was made with reasonable particularity
based on its knowledge concerning the unique and suspicious circumstances surrounding the
disclosure. Moreover, Mr. Meisel has directly admitted the existence and his use of a conduit
with whom he communicated and through whom he obtained a copy of NOMs unredacted 2008
Schedule B. Cf. Rue, 819 F.2d at 1494 (existence and possession of documents a foregone
conclusion where party implicitlyacknowledged and indirectly admitted the existence and
possession of those records.). Mr. Meisels correspondence with his promising conduitadds
little or nothing to the sum total of the Governments information by conceding that he in fact
has the [communications]. Id. at 411. Consequently, these documents should be produced by
Mr. Meisel in response to the specific requests for those documents. See suprap. 7. Lang, 792
F.2d at 1240-1241.
The authenticity of the requested communications is also a foregone conclusion as they
can be independently authenticated pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1) by the
conduit,Stone, 976 F.2d at 911, orby their appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns,
or other distinctive characteristics of the item[s], taken together with all the circumstances
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4).Rue,819 F.2d at 1494. A court may, of course,
rely on such evidence for authentication purposes. Pasquotank Action Council v. City of
Virginia Beach, 909 F. Supp. 376, 385 (E.D. Va. 1995); Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241
F.R.D. 534, 546 (D. Md. 2007) (Fed. R. Evid. R. 901(b)(4) is one of the most frequently used to
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 16 of 21 PageID# 202
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
24/106
17
authenticate e-mail and other electronic records.);see also United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d
1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2000) (allowing the authentication of an e-mail entirely by
circumstantial evidence).
For these reasons, the act of producing the requested communications is not testimonial
in nature, and therefore Mr. Meisels Fifth Amendment rights are not implicated. NOM
respectfully requests that he be compelled to produce the requested communications.7
II. The Requested Documents Should be Produced Because Their Production DoesNot Pose a Substantial and Real Hazard of Self-Incrimination to Mr. Meisel.
In delineating the contours of a Fifth Amendment privilege claims, the Supreme Court
has crafted a framework that requires the presence of each of three distinct elements. Hubbell,
167 F.3d at 567, affd by Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27. Whether addressed to oral testimony or to
documentary evidence, the doctrine necessitates a showing of: i) the compulsion; ii) of
testimony; iii) that incriminates. Id. (citing Fisher, 425 U.S. at 409); see alsoDoe, 670 F.3d
1341 (An individual must show three things to fall within the ambit of the Fifth Amendment:
(1) compulsion, (2) a testimonial communication or act, and (3) incrimination.).
Therefore, even if the existence, possession, and authenticity of certain requested
documents is not a foregone conclusion, Mr. Meisel may not withhold those document if their
production does not pose a substantial and real hazard of self-incrimination.
7NOM believes that Mr. Meisel has also improperly asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege in notproducing a copy of communications (and an email attachment) between Kevin Nix at the HRC
and himself. See HRC Production at 2-6. Because NOM has already received a copy of thosecommunications from the recipient, their existence is a foregone conclusion and therefore theact of producing them adds nothing to what is already known. However, because NOM hasalready received those documents from HRC, it has decided not to compel their production inthis motion.
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 17 of 21 PageID# 203
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
25/106
18
The privilege against self-incrimination protects only those assertions of fact which the
witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other
evidence that might be so used. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45 (1972).
However, where documents are concerned, the courts looks only to whether some aspect of the
production itself is incriminating, while ignoring the contents, which, if compiled voluntarily, are
not privileged. See United States v. OShea, 662 F. Supp. 2d 535, 544 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (citing
Doe, 465 U.S. at 612;Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410) (act of production privilege may apply if the act
of producing a document communicates potentially incriminating information independent of the
contents of the document) (emphasis in original). The party making the assertion must be
confronted by substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of
incrimination.Doe, 465 U.S. at 614 (citations and quotations omitted).
The act of producing the documents sought from Mr. Meisel does not pose a substantial
and real hazard of self-incrimination. According to the Government, NOMs 2007 and amended
2008 Form 990s, the IRS Form 4506-A, and the 3983C letter were all possessed by Mr. Meisel
in connection with a valid request for copies of NOMs tax returns. According to the
Government, nothing about Mr. Meisels request was illegal or improper. Cf. Fisher, 425 U.S. at
412 ([A]ssuming that these aspects of producing the accountants papers have some minimal
testimonial significance, surely it is not illegal to seek accounting help in connection with ones
tax returns.). Indeed, no law makes it a crime to request or receive tax return information from
the IRS, even when what is received constitutes an unauthorized disclosure by the IRS in
violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103, as was the case here.
Nor is it incriminating to admit to the existence and possession of communications with
Mr. Meisels promising conduit. In fact, Mr. Meisel has already tu rned over communications
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 18 of 21 PageID# 204
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
26/106
19
that directly make such an admission, suggesting that Mr. Meisel does not believe that conceding
their existence and possession implicates his Fifth Amendment rights. NOM is unable to identify
any law which would punish the mere possession of communications with an employee of the
federal government.
Therefore, the documents reflecting communications with the IRS and his receipt of
NOMstax return information cannot incriminate him or provide a link in the chain leading to
potential prosecution.
III. Mr. Meisel Must Submit His Documents for I n Camera Review So the CourtCan Determine Whether the Privilege Has Been Properly Asserted.
It is this Court, and not Mr. Meisel, who decides whether the privilege has been properly
asserted with respect to a given question or document. United States v. Sharp, 920 F.2d 1167,
1170 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). Mr.
Meisel cannot avoid turning over documents merely because he declares that in so doing he
would incriminate himselfhis say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. It
is for the court to say whether his silence is justified . . . . Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S.
479, 486 (1951). Instead, the Court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding whether or
not the privilege is well-founded on a document-by-document basis. United States v. Harrison,
1976 App. LEXIS 8275, 7 (4th Cir. 1976);Argomaniz, 925 F.2d at 1355;see also United States
v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 984 (4th Cir. 1991). Courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have
generally agreed that this is best accomplished through an in camera proceeding in which the
person claiming privilege may substantiate his claims and the Court has the opportunity to
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 19 of 21 PageID# 205
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
27/106
20
consider documents at issue.8 Wujkowski, 929 F.2d at 984; Argomaniz, 925 F.2d at 1355 and
n.13. The determination of whether or not a constitutional privilege applies cannot be based on
presumption. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d at 984.
In other words, Mr. Meisel cannot adjudicate his own Fifth Amendment claims. United
States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2010). The Court must perform a sufficient review to
determine whether there is a reasonable basis for believing a danger to the witness exists in
producing a particular document. Anton v. Prospect Caf Milano, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 216, 218
(D.D.C. 2006). The burden of demonstrating such a danger rests with Mr. Meisel, who must
establish, first, that he has a substantial and reasonable fear of prosecution and, second, that the
act of producing the document would be incriminating.Anton, 233 F.R.D. at 219. For the reasons
explained above, Mr. Meisel cannot make such a showing, and the requested documents should
be produced.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of February 2014,
/s/ Jason Torchinsky__________Jason Torchinsky (Va. 47481)Shawn Toomey Sheehy (Va. 82630)Holtzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100Warrenton, VA 20186(540) 341-8808 (telephone)(540) 341-8809 (fax)[email protected]@hvjlaw.comCounsel for Plaintiff
8The Fifth Amendment is not infringed by producing documents for in camerainspection.In reThree Grand Jury Subpoenas, Dated Jan. 5, 1988, 847 F.2d 1024, 1028-29 (2d Cir. 1988).
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 20 of 21 PageID# 206
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
28/106
21
John C. Eastman (Cal. 193726)*Anthony T. Caso (Cal. 88561)*Center for Constitutional Jurisprudencec/o Chapman University School of LawOne University Drive
Orange, CA 92866(877) 855-3330 x2 (telephone)(714) 844-4817 (fax)[email protected]@chapman.eduCounsel for Plaintiff
Cleta Mitchell, of counsel(D.C. 433386)*William E. Davis, of counsel(D.C. 280057)*
Mathew D. Gutierrez, of counsel(Fla. 0094014)*Kaylan L. Phillips (Ind. 30405-84)*Noel H. Johnson (Wisc. 1068004)*ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION209 West Main StreetPlainfield, IN 46168(317) 203-5599 (telephone)(888) 815-5641 (fax)[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected] for Plaintiff
* AdmittedPro Hac Vice
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-3 Filed 02/21/14 Page 21 of 21 PageID# 207
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
29/106
Exhibit A
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 208
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
30/106Ex. A, Page 1
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 209
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
31/106Ex. A, Page 2
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 210
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
32/106Ex. A, Page 3
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 211
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
33/106Ex. A, Page 4
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 212
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
34/106Ex. A, Page 5
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 213
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
35/106
Exhibit B
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-5 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 214
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
36/106
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR TH EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria DivisionTHE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORMARRIAGE, INC.
Plaintiff,v Civil Action No. 13-1225-JCC-IDD
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendant.
INITIAL DISCLOSURES OF DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICAThe United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, makes its initial disclosures
in accordance with Fed. R Civ. P 26(a)(l ) and the parties' proposed scheduling order, asfollows:I . The name, and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely tohave discoverable information along with the subjects of that information that thedisclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely
for impeachment:(a) Representative(s) for Plaintiffc/o Plaintiffs counsel
Subject: Plaintiffs designee has information pertaining to the allegeddisclosure of and alleged damages resulting from the inadvertent disclosure ofPlaintiff's 2008 Form 990, as well as the other allegations in its VerifiedComplaint.
(b) Matthew MeiselWaltham, Massachusettsc/o Matt Kaiser, The Kaiser Law Firm PLLC, 1400 I St, NW, 525,Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 640-2850.Subject: Mr. Meisel has information pertaining to the request for thedisclosure of Plaintiffs 2008 Form 990, the IRS's production of Plaintiffs2008 Form 990, the receipt by the Human Rights Campaign of Plaintiffs
1
Ex. B, Page 1
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-5 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 215
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
37/106
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
38/106
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
39/106
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
40/106
5
DANA J BOENTEACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEYDavid MoskowitzAssistant U.S. Attorney2100 Jamieson AvenueAlexandria, Virginia 22314Telephone: 703) 299-3845Fax: 703) 299-3983E-Mail: [email protected] for the United States o America
Admitted pro hac vice
Ex. B, Page 5
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-5 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 219
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
41/106
CERTIFIC TE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 20, 2013, I served the foregoing InitialDisclosures on counsel o record below by electronic mail and U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Jason Brett TorchinskyHoltzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC45 North Hill DriveSuite 100Warrenton, VA 20186540-341-8808Fax: 540-341-8809Email: [email protected] Toomey SheehyHoltzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC45 North Hill DriveSuite 00Warrenton, VA 20186540-341-8808Fax: 540-341-8809Email: [email protected]
6
CHRISTOPHER D BELEN, VSB 78281Trial Attorney, Tax DivisionU.S. Department o Justice
Ex. B, Page 6
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-5 Filed 02/21/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 220
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
42/106
Exhibit C
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 31 PageID# 221
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
43/106Ex. C, Page 1
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 31 PageID# 222
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
44/106
11016338.2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR )
MARRIAGE, INC. ))
Plaintiff, )
)v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1225-JCC-IDD
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ))
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFSFIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Pursuant to Local Rule 26(C) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, and 36,
Defendant, the United States of America, through its undersigned counsel, provides the
following responses and objections to Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories, requests for
admission, and requests for production of documents in the above-captioned action. The
responses below incorporate, as if fully set forth in general and for each specific discovery
request, the United States Objections to Plaintiffs First Discovery Requests, dated January 7,
2014. As discovery is ongoing and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is searching for
additional documents, the United States will supplement these discovery responses in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
INTERROGATORY OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
1. Identify the individual(s) who was/were in any way involved in the inspection,
dissemination and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs return and/or return information as well as the
supervisor(s) of the individual(s).
Ex. C, Page 2
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 31 PageID# 223
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
45/106
2
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this interrogatory. Subject to these objections, Defendant states as follows: Wendy J. Peters is
identified as being involved in the disclosure of Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990, Return of
Organization Exempt From Income Tax (Form 990), including an unredacted Schedule B.
Her former immediate supervisor was Ben Aaron Johanson. The United States also contends
that Matthew Meisel was involved, and that individuals associated with the Human Rights
Campaign (HRC), the Huffington Post, and other news outlets and third parties may have been
involved in the unforeseeable dissemination of Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990, unredacted
Schedule B. The United States does not know these individuals supervisors, if any.
2. For each individual(s) identified in Interrogatory Number 1, state all facts and
describe in detail any inspections and/or disclosures of NOMs return and return information,
including the following for each disclosure:
(a) What specific return and/or return information was inspected and/or disclosed;
(b) Where and when such inspection(s) and/or disclosure(s) occurred;
(c) Regarding disclosure(s), to whom was the return and/or return information disclosed;
(d) Regarding disclosure(s), whether and how the disclosure(s) was/were requested;
(e) Which individuals associated with the United States, if any, were consulted or
informed of the inspection(s) and/or disclosure(s);
(f) When any individuals listed in (e), if any, were informed of such inspection(s) and/or
disclosure(s);
(g) Identify all documents and persons with knowledge that tend to support or undermine
your contentions in (a) through (f) above.
Ex. C, Page 3
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 31 PageID# 224
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
46/106
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
47/106
4
the filing of this action. Subject to these objections and the general objections incorporated
above, the United States avers that, after the publication of Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990,
unredacted Schedule B in late March and early April 2012 by persons not employed by or
affiliated with the IRS, the following individuals were informed of the disclosure or were asked
to help determine whether a disclosure had been made: agents and employees for the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA); IRS employees listed or otherwise named
in the TIGTA Report of Investigation (ROI), dated October 10, 2012; Sherry Whitaker, Robert
Blackwell, David Hamilton, Karl Hinds, Michael Leszcz, Ben Aaron Johanson, Kelli Graser,
Connie Peek, Debra Scott, JaLynne Archibald, Debbie Bybee, Rhonda Gill, Linda Oram, Stacy
Fisher, Christina DAmico, Roberta Zarin, Lois Lerner, Michelle Eldridge, David Fish, Joseph
Urban, Dawn Marx, Andy Megosh, Laurice Ghougasian, Holly Paz, Joseph Grant, Doble
Gregorio, Maria Hooke, Moises Medina, Richard Daly, Marian Bodart, Justin Lowe, Thomas
Miller, Judith Kindell, Sharon Light, Christina Navarrete-Wasson, Jeffrey Cooper, Kevin
Cunningham, Marci Ansley Plyer, Christina Hartman, Shelley Moore, Steven Miller and J.
Russell George. To the extent any other individuals are not listed, and in accordance with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 33(d), the United States incorporates any other individuals listed in the documents
produced in response to Plaintiffs document requests that involve communications pertaining to
the disclosure of Plaintiffs amended Form 2008, unredacted Schedule B.
(f) The United States objects that this information is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and the general objections
incorporated above, individuals associated with the United States were informed on various dates
of the disclosure of Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990, unredacted Schedule B, beginning on or
around April 5, 2012.
Ex. C, Page 5
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 31 PageID# 226
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
48/106
5
(g) The United States identifies the TIGTA ROI, dated October 10, 2012, in support of its
contentions, the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) that identify the
applicable policies, and the IRS database history indicating approximately when the Letter
3983C, EO Photocopy Request Response, at issue was processed in March 2011. The United
States will identify additional responsive documents if and when they are produced. Individuals
with knowledge in support of the United States contentions include individuals listed or
identified in (i) the TIGTA ROI, (ii) documents produced by HRC and Matthew Meisel, (iii) the
United States initial disclosures, and (iv) in response to subpart (e) of this interrogatory.
3. Please state with specificity all facts and identify all documents that tend to
support or undermine your contention that the disclosure of Plaintiffs return and/or return
information was inadvertent and limited to one occurrence. SeeAnswer, 105-08.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this interrogatory. Subject to these objections, Defendant states as follows with regard to
documents: The United States identifies the TIGTA ROI in support of its contentions, the
relevant sections of the IRM that identify the applicable procedures and policies governing the
disclosure, and the documents pertaining to the processing of and response to the Form 4506-A
at issue (including when the responding RAIVS (Return and Income Verification Services)
clerk entered a command into the IRS database system used by RAIVS clerks to instruct the
system to prepare a 3983C letter). The United States will identify additional responsive
documents if and when they are produced. With regard to the facts and in addition to the United
States January 7, 2014 objections, the United States objects to this interrogatory as unduly
burdensome because it demands that Defendant prove a negative that more than one
Ex. C, Page 6
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 7 of 31 PageID# 227
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
49/106
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
50/106
7
(h)the IRS clerk has denied intentionally disclosing Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form990, Schedule B without the proper redactions;
(i) at the time of the disclosure, the IRS clerk did not know Matthew Meisel, KevinNix, Sam Stein, anyone at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) or the
Huffington Post, or Fred Karger;
(j) at the time of the disclosure, the clerk did not know any of the other individualsPlaintiff identified to TIGTA as persons who disagree with Plaintiffs mission;
(k)at the time of the disclosure, the IRS clerk was processing a substantial majorityof the approximately 100 to 300 requests for copies of Form 990s the IRSreceived per week;
(l) the IRS Wage and Information Division (W & I) unit tasked with responding torequests for Form 990s the W & I RAIVS unit located in the Ogden, Utah IRS
Service Center processed over approximately 11,000 Form 4506-A requests in2010 and over approximately 13,000 Form 4506-A requests in 2011;
(m)at the time of the disclosure and through the time of the TIGTA investigationleading to its ROI dated October 10, 2012, the IRS W & I Ogden Accounting
Operations Quality Review unit, which reviewed RAIVS unit completed workrelated to the IRS production of copies of Form 990s, had never detected errors
with regard to the IRS clerk who disclosed Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990,
unredacted Schedule B;
(n)before responding to Mr. Meisels request for the Form 990, the IRS clerkcontacted an IRS media relations specialist to determine whether Mr. Meisel wasa member of the media, which he claimed to be when he completed and filed theIRS Form 4506-A;
(o)before responding to Mr. Meisels request for a copy of Plaintiffs Form 990 andafter she printed both copies of the original and the amended versions of
Plaintiffs 2008 Form 990s, the IRS clerk waited over a month for the IRS media
relations specialist to determine that Mr. Meisel was not a member of the media;
(p)the IRS clerk e-mailed the IRS media relations employee a total of five timesbetween January and March, 2011, waiting for a determination of Mr. Meisels
status as a member of the media;
(q)Mr. Meisel also requested Plaintiffs 2007 Form 990, which the IRS produced atthe same time as its amended 2008 Form 990, in March 2011;
(r) in January, 2011, the IRS clerk printed both versions of Plaintiffs 2008 Form990, including an unredacted Schedule B, at a printer located within the RAIVSunit;
Ex. C, Page 8
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 9 of 31 PageID# 229
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
51/106
8
(s) after printing Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990 in January 2011, the IRS clerkfailed to redact the names and addresses of Plaintiffs contributors, even though
redacting that information was her responsibility and normal practice and
procedure, and was required to satisfy the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS
policies and procedures;
(t) the IRS clerk did not produce to Mr. Meisel a copy of Plaintiffs original 2008Form 990, a tax return that included a Schedule B that listed more donors than theSchedule B attached to Plaintiffs amended Schedule B;
(u)the IRS clerk caused the IRS systems to create a Form 3983C letter, which is atypical letter used in responding to Form 4506-A requests;
(v)the IRS clerk did not mail the copy of Plaintiffs Forms 990 that were produced toMr. Meisel. The IRS clerk sent photocopied Forms 990 to the CRX unit, which
was responsible for assembling photocopied tax forms together with 3983C lettersresponding to the persons requesting the copies. A 3983C letter was printed at the
Ogden Service Center print center in response to an instruction entered into the
IRS database system and sent to CRX, where it was assembled with the relevant
photocopied Forms, and put out for picking up by IRS mail clerks and mailed;
(w)the IRS produced a 3983C letter and the 2007 Form 990 and amended 2008 Form990 in response to a Form 4506-A request;
(x)the actual disclosure of Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990, unredacted ScheduleB to Mr. Meisel occurred in or around March, 2011, a year before the disclosure
became widely known and a year before the Schedule B information wasunforeseeably publicized and disseminated by HRC, the Huffington Post, andFred Karger;
(y)the Internal Revenue Service responded to three subsequent Form 4506-Arequests for Plaintiffs Form 990s in August, September and December 2011,
including two by the clerk who inadvertently disclosed the Form 990 at issue,
and properly redacted the names and addresses of Plaintiffs contributors; and,
(z) the Internal Revenue Service played no part in any effort by any third parties,including Mr. Meisel, HRC, or the Huffington Post, to obscure the unique
identifiers located on the Schedule B that Plaintiff allegedly uncovered through itsinvestigation.
Ex. C, Page 9
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 10 of 31 PageID# 230
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
52/106
9
4. Please state with specificity all facts and identify all documents that tend to
support or undermine your contention that the United States did not engage in any unauthorized
inspections. SeeAnswer, 112.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this interrogatory. Specifically, Defendant states that Interrogatory 4 is unduly burdensome
because it demands that Defendant prove a negative. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that
Defendant engaged in any alleged unauthorized inspection but has asserted no facts supporting
such a contention. Subject to and without waiving its objections, the United States states that the
IRS clerk properly inspected Plaintiffs 2007 and 2008 Form 990 in order to respond to Matthew
Meisels Form 4506-A request.
5. Please identify each and every individual or entity who was an employee,
contractor or vendor of or to the United States that conducted any kind of analysis (including
computer and/or forensic), investigation (whether internal or conducted by a third party), created
any report, conducted any interviews or provided any presentations to the United States relating
to the disclosure and/or inspection of NOMs return and return information or this lawsuit, and
identify all documents relating to the same.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this interrogatory. Subject to these objections, Defendant states as follows: The United States
identifies the TIGTA ROI in support of its contentions, and will identify additional responsive
documents if and when they are produced. Subject to those statements, the United States
identifies the following individuals and entity in response to this interrogatory: TIGTA and
agents of TIGTA, as identified in the TIGTA ROI; IRS employees identified in the TIGTA ROI,
Ex. C, Page 10
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 11 of 31 PageID# 231
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
53/106
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
54/106
11
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this interrogatory. Subject to these objections, Defendant states as follows: The United States
identifies the following IRS individuals in response to this interrogatory: Marylou Andrews
(ret.) provided on-the-job training, including on the relevant governing IRM provisions, to
Wendy Peters relating to the photocopying and disclosure of return information. Computer
training on disclosure and privacy issues was provided by the centralized IRS Training
department. Various individuals, including RAIVS employees, provided on-the-job training to
Ben Aaron Johanson.
8. Identify the date, type and nature of training provided to any individual(s)
identified in Interrogatory Number 1.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this interrogatory. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that Wendy Peters was provided
on-the-job training, a W & I February, 2009 training regarding the procedures for processing tax
form transcript requests received through the Income Verification Express Service (IVES)
program, in addition to learning about the protocols detailed in the Internal Revenue Manual,
through on-the-job training and experience gained from preparing numerous responses to Form
4506-A requests. IRS computerized trainings on disclosure and privacy issues were provided on
September 22, 2008, and on information security on April 21, 2009, and April 13, 2010.
Documents regarding training are being produced by the government.
Ex. C, Page 12
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 13 of 31 PageID# 233
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
55/106
12
9. Identify all persons within the Department of the Treasury and/or the Internal
Revenue Service, who communicated, either internally or externally, regarding Plaintiff and the
inspection and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs confidential return and/or return information.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this interrogatory. Defendant specifically objects to the overly broad and unduly burdensome
request for information regarding Plaintiff, as applied to any communication, internally or
externally, by all persons within two large government agencies with tens of thousands of
employees, in the context of this case, which pertains to a lone, inadvertent disclosure of tax
return information. As such, the Defendant would be required to expend an exorbitant number
of hours to locate and identify all individuals in offices nationwide in order to determine who
may have communicated with anyone regarding Plaintiff and the inspection and/or disclosure of
Plaintiffs confidential return and/or return information. Moreover, Defendant objects because
this interrogatory is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that IRS and TIGTA
employees listed in the TIGTA ROI, as well as individuals listed in response to subpart (e) of
Interrogatory 2 and other individuals identified in the documents produced in response to
Plaintiffs document requests, communicated about Plaintiff after the publishing of Plaintiffs
amended 2008 Form 990, Schedule B and as it related to the disclosure of its amended 2008
Form 990, Schedule B.
10. Identify all Internal Revenue Manual [sic] Treasury Regulations, Delegation
Orders, Treasury Orders, Treasury General Counsel Orders, General Counsel Memoranda, Chief
Ex. C, Page 13
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 14 of 31 PageID# 234
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
56/106
13
Counsel Advice, Internal Revenue Bulletins, Revenue Procedures, and Technical Advice
Memoranda, relating to the inspection and the disclosure of returns or return information.
Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory 10 as unduly burdensome because
Plaintiff has equal access to public documents that may be responsive to Plaintiffs request.
Plaintiff seeks those materials that Defendant believes relat[e] to the inspection and the
disclosure of returns or return information, and, therefore, Defendant objects because
Interrogatory 10 seeks attorney work product and it requires Defendants counsel to conduct
legal research for Plaintiff, which is not proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Subject to and without
waiving these objections, the Defendant identifies the following materials that concern the
disclosure of return information under 26 U.S.C. 6103, 6104: portions of the Code of Federal
Regulations, including, 26 C.F.R. 301.6103(a)-1, 301.6103(a)-2, 301.6103(c)-1,
301.6103(h)(2)-1, 301.6103(1)-1, 301.6103(j)(1)-1, 301.6103(j)(1)-1T, 301.6103(j)(5)-1,
301.6103(k)(6)-1, 301.6103(k)(9)-1, 301.6103(l)-1, 301.6103(l)(2)-1, 301.6103(l)(2)-2,
301.6103(l)(2)-3, 301.6103(l)(14)-1, 301.6103(m)-1, 301.6103(n)-1, 301.6103(n)-2,
301.6103(p)(2)(B)-1,301.6103(p)(4)-1, 301.6103(p)(7)-1; 26 C.F.R. 301.6104(a)-1,
301.6104(a)-2, 301.6104(a)-3, 301.6104(a)-4, 301.6104(a)-5, 301.6104(a)-6, 301.6104(b)-1,
301.6014(c)-1, 301.6104(d)-0, 301.6104(d)-1, 301.6104(d)-2, 301.6104(d)-3; 26 C.F.R.
601.702; IRM sections 3.5.20, 3.11.12, 3.20.12, 3.20.13, and 11.3.1 et seq.(specifically 11.3.9),
and others cited in response to Interrogatory 6, above. In addition, the Disclosure and Privacy
Law Reference Guide, Publication No. 4639, Catalogue No. 50891P, a publication of the IRS,
Office of Chief Counsel, Procedure & Administration, is made available to the public at
www.irs.gov. In particular, Chapter 13, Part III, of that publication addresses Publicity of
Information Required From Certain Exempt Organizations I.R.C. 6104.
Ex. C, Page 14
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 15 of 31 PageID# 235
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
57/106
14
11. If the documents in response to any of these interrogatories or requests for
production are in the possession of a third party, and you are not providing them in response to
any of the document production requests, please identify the third party and which document(s)
it possesses.
Response: The United States identifies Matthew Meisel as a third party that may possess
documents that are responsive to this request. These documents could include the Form 4506-A
Mr. Meisel submitted to the IRS, the 2007 and 2008 Form 990s he received from the IRS and the
3983C letter that accompanied the IRS response.
12. Please identify all individuals who assisted in and/or conferred with you in the
preparation of the responses to these interrogatories, the requests for production of documents
and the requests for admission.
Response: Defendant objects to Interrogatory 12 to the extent it seeks information that is
subject to the attorney-client privilege, protections of the attorney work-product doctrine, or the
law enforcement investigative privilege. Subject to these objections, Defendant states that
counsel for the United States, counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and counsel for TIGTA
assisted in or were conferred with regarding the preparation of Defendants responses to
Plaintiffs first set of discovery. Beyond those individuals and the individuals who provided
counsel with copies of the documents in their possession and/or control, the following
individuals assisted in or were conferred with in the preparation of the responses to Plaintiffs
first set of discovery: Karl Hinds, JaLynne K. Archibald, Christina L. Navarrete-Wasson, Connie
Peek, and Sherry Whitaker.
Ex. C, Page 15
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 16 of 31 PageID# 236
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
58/106
15
13. If you do not provide an unqualified admission in response to all of the requests
for admission below, separately for each request for admission, state all facts and identify all
persons with knowledge and documents that support your response.
Response: To the extent the United States does not provide an unqualified admission,
the facts, individuals, and documents in support of its response are listed for each request,
respectively.
DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
1. Please admit that NOMs 2008 Schedule B that was published on the Human
Rights Commission and the Huffington Posts websites on March 30, 2012 is identical to the
version that was disclosed by the United States.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for admission. Subject to those objections, the United States responds as follows:
the United States is unable to admit or deny based upon a diligent inquiry. The United States
does not have the exact document that was produced to Matthew Meisel and does not know what
was published on the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Posts websites on March 30,
2012. The United States admits that the unique identifying diagonal watermark on the excerpted
page from Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990 attached to Plaintiffs Verified Complaint and
that Plaintiff alleges was redacted from the amended 2008 Form 990, Schedule B, which
currently exists on the Huffington Posts website matches a copy of a page from Plaintiffs
amended 2008 Form 990, Schedule B that the IRS inadvertently disclosed. The United States
will supplement this response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) to the extent necessary.
Ex. C, Page 16
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 17 of 31 PageID# 237
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
59/106
16
2. Please admit that every retrieval of a Form 990 from the IRS internal computer
systems is logged, tracked, and traceable to a specific employee, vendor or contractor.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for admission. Subject to those objections, the United States responds as follows:
Denied. The United States admits that, except for qualified systems administrators, every access
of Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990 from the IRS database named Online SEIN or OL-SEIN
(Statistics of Income Exempt Organizations Return Image Network) is logged and traceable to a
specific date, time, and IRS employee.
3. Please admit that accessing the IRS internal computer systems containing
complete unredacted Form 990s requires one or more log-in steps that any person seeking access
to such files must follow.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for admission. Subject to those objections, the United States responds as follows:
Denied as written. The United States admits that IRS employees must have specific permissions
to log into particular systems. Access to a complete, unredacted Form 990 requires authorized
IRS employees, except qualified and authorized systems administrators, to properly login using
several steps before being able to view an unredacted Form 990.
4. Please admit that the donor information contained on Schedule B of Form 990 is
confidential taxpayer information.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for admission. Subject to those objections, the United States responds as follows:
Ex. C, Page 17
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 18 of 31 PageID# 238
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
60/106
17
Denied. The United States admits that the names and addresses of contributors reported on
Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990, Schedule B is protected by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
5. Please admit that the release of the unredacted Schedule B to third parties did not
follow normal IRS internal procedures for responding to requests for Form 990s.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for admission. Subject to those objections, the United States responds as follows:
Denied as written. The United States admits that the IRS clerk who processed the request for
Plaintiffs amended 2008 Form 990 normally would have redacted the names and addresses
contained on the Schedule B before she sent the Form 990 out to any third party in accordance
with the Internal Revenue Code and the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Manual as
outlined in response to Interrogatory Numbers 6 and 10, and inadvertently failed to do so.
DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
1. All documents regarding the IRSs disclosure and/or inspection of NOMs return
and return information (including its 2008 Form 990, Schedule B), including documents relating
to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's (TIGTA) Complaint Number 63-
1204-0051-C, as well as internal and external communications.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for production. Subject to those objections, the United States responds that it is
producing responsive, relevant and non-privileged documents along with these responses and
objections, and that it will supplement its production of such documents to the extent additional
Ex. C, Page 18
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 19 of 31 PageID# 239
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
61/106
18
responsive, relevant and non-privileged documents are located, and in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this districts Local Rules.
2. All documents constituting communications to or from any individual working at
the Department of the Treasury and/or the Internal Revenue Service-including but not limited to
political appointees, employees, anyone within the Treasury Inspector Generals Office and
independent contractors-relating to the inspection and/or disclosure of Plaintiff's return and
return information. The communications sought are both internal communications within either
the Internal Revenue Service or the Department of the Treasury and external communications
between a person within either the Department of the Treasury or Internal Revenue Service and
someone outside either agency, including but not limited to: reporters, persons working for other
government agencies, other branches of the federal government including Congressional
Committees, representatives of the national political parties, political candidates, elected federal
officials, persons at non-profit entities, etc.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for production. Subject to those objections, the United States responds that it is
producing responsive, relevant and non-privileged documents along with these responses and
objections, and that it will supplement its production of such documents to the extent additional
responsive, relevant and non-privileged documents are located, and in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this districts Local Rules.
3. All documents including and relating to training materials, written procedures, or
other instructions concerning the review of requests for information about tax exempt
Ex. C, Page 19
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 41-6 Filed 02/21/14 Page 20 of 31 PageID# 240
8/13/2019 1:13-cv-01225 #41
62/106
19
organizations that were provided to any individual(s) identified in response to Interrogatory
Number 1, above.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for production. Subject to those objections, the United States responds that it is
producing responsive, relevant and non-privileged documents along with these responses and
objections, and that it will supplement its production of such documents to the extent additional
responsive, relevant and non-privileged documents are located, and in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this districts Local Rules.
4. All documents containing any written instruction, formal or informal, by any
individual working at the Department of the Treasury and/or the Internal Revenue Service-
including but not limited to political appointees, employees, anyone within the Treasury
Inspector Generals Office and independent contractors -- relating to the processing, screening,
review and/or scrutiny of Form 990s based on the taxpayers political viewpoint, associate [sic]
or affiliation or other categorization based on perceived public policy viewpoint by the taxpayer.
Response: Defendant incorporates its objections dated January 7, 2014 in its response to
this request for production.
5. Produce the Treasury Inspector Generals Report concerning the investigation
int