The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report. Dated: April 2, 2006.

AVC ¶¶ 80-85, 90-91. Defendants also claim the Kelleys’ allegations of the FBI’s pressuring an FBI agent not to provide complete and accurate information on Mrs. Kelley did not include a direct allegation of “dissemination” of that relevant FD-302 report, and there- fore argue that the allegations are insufficient to state a claim under § 552a(b). Mot.

The Department also withheld this information, which was Case 1:14-cv-01358-RC Document 33-2 Filed 11/17/16 Page 31 of 34 32 Davidson v. Dep’t of State, et al. Supplemental Stein Declaration No. 1:14-cv-01358 (ABJ)   prepared in reasonable anticipation of civil litigation, under Privacy Act Exemption (d)(5), 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(5). Release of this information, which is pre-decisional and deliberative with respect to a final decision on how to process Plaintiff’s request and contains the officials’ opinions and preliminary assessments, could reasonably be expected to chill the open and frank expression of ideas, recommendations, and opinions that occur when Department officials are formulating a strategy for official action.

Compare Compl. ¶ 41 (alleging that Plaintiffs have experienced adverse effects “including but not limited to embarrassment, inconvenience”) with 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) (requiring agency to establish appropriate safeguards to protect against threats to security that “could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness”). Completely absent from their Complaint is the factual basis that would allow an inference that Plaintiffs have been adversely affected by Defendants’ alleged conduct.

16. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), “No agency [may] disclose any record . . . contained in a system of records . . .. except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains” unless otherwise authorized by law.

The statute permits agencies to exempt themselves from some of the Act’s requirements, but notably missing from the list is the free expression constraint imposed by Section (e)(7). See 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) (allowing agency to exempt itself from sections other than, inter alia, (e)(7)); 552a(k) (listing sections that are exempt, but not listing (e)(7)). The Government’s convoluted argument to the contrary – “the FBI does not contend that any responsive records (if any) would be exempt from (e)(7), but rather that they would be exempt from amendment, and, thus, expungement,” Gov. Br.

An individual entitled to recovery is statutorily guaranteed a minimum of $1000. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A). ARGUMENT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of Class falls woefully short of satisfying the requirements for class certification.

OPINION PER CURIAM. **1 Philip A. Vaughn appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendant on his claims that he was wrongfully discharged from the United *124 States Navy, and that the destruction of disciplinary records violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552a (West 1996 & Supp.2001). Finding no error, we affirm.

Moreover, although an adverse effect is necessary to establish the “injury-in-fact and causation requirements of Article III standing,” and an “individual subjected to an adverse effect has injury enough to open the courthouse door, . . . without more [he] has no cause of action for damages under the Privacy Act.” Doe, 540 U.S. at 624-25. Thus, an individual plaintiff seeking damages under the Act must also plead and prove “intent or willfulness [on the agency’s part] in addition to adverse effect,” id. at 624; see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4), as well as “actual damages,” Doe, 540 U.S. at 627; see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A).

Tarullo v. Defense Contract Audit Agency, 600 F. Supp. 2d 352, 358 (D. Conn. 2009); Shields v. Shetler, 682 F. Supp. 1172, 1176 (D. Colo. 1988) (Act “does not create a private right of action to enjoin agency disclosures”). 1 Through pursuit of an amendment request to the agency and a request for administrative review, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(d)(2)-(3), exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to a civil action for “amendment” of records. This requirement is jurisdictional in nature because it is imposed by the Act itself, whereas the requirement of exhaustion in “access” lawsuits is only jurisprudential in nature, as it is not imposed by the Act itself.