Filed June 19, 2017
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.
Filed April 16, 2014
AVC ยถยถ 80-85, 90-91. Defendants also claim the Kelleysโ allegations of the FBIโs pressuring an FBI agent not to provide complete and accurate information on Mrs. Kelley did not include a direct allegation of โdisseminationโ of that relevant FD-302 report, and there- fore argue that the allegations are insufficient to state a claim under ยง 552a(b). Mot.
Filed November 17, 2016
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. Depโt 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. ยง 552a(d)(5). Release of this information, which is pre-decisional and deliberative with respect to a final decision on how to process Plaintiffโs request and contains the officialsโ 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.
Filed July 10, 2007
Compare Compl. ยถ 41 (alleging that Plaintiffs have experienced adverse effects โincluding but not limited to embarrassment, inconvenienceโ) with 5 U.S.C. ยง 552a(e)(10) (requiring agency to establish appropriate safeguards to protect against threats to security that โcould result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairnessโ). Completely absent from their Complaint is the factual basis that would allow an inference that Plaintiffs have been adversely affected by Defendantsโ alleged conduct.
Filed June 1, 2017
16. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ยง 552a(b), โNo 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 pertainsโ unless otherwise authorized by law.
Filed December 23, 2011
The statute permits agencies to exempt themselves from some of the Actโs 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 Governmentโs convoluted argument to the contrary โ โthe 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,โ Gov. Br.
Filed July 30, 2008
An individual entitled to recovery is statutorily guaranteed a minimum of $1000. 5 U.S.C. ยง 552a(g)(4)(A). ARGUMENT Plaintiffsโ Motion for Certification of Class falls woefully short of satisfying the requirements for class certification.
Filed July 18, 2016
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. ยง 552a (West 1996 & Supp.2001). Finding no error, we affirm.
Filed February 22, 2007
Moreover, although an adverse effect is necessary to establish the โinjury-in-fact and causation requirements of Article III standing,โ and an โindividual 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.โ Doe, 540 U.S. at 624-25. Thus, an individual plaintiff seeking damages under the Act must also plead and prove โintent or willfulness [on the agencyโs part] in addition to adverse effect,โ id. at 624; see 5 U.S.C. ยง 552a(g)(4), as well as โactual damages,โ Doe, 540 U.S. at 627; see 5 U.S.C. ยง 552a(g)(4)(A).
Filed July 3, 2017
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 โdoes not create a private right of action to enjoin agency disclosuresโ). 1 Through pursuit of an amendment request to the agency and a request for administrative review, 5 U.S.C. ยงยง 552a(d)(2)-(3), exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to a civil action for โamendmentโ of records. This requirement is jurisdictional in nature because it is imposed by the Act itself, whereas the requirement of exhaustion in โaccessโ lawsuits is only jurisprudential in nature, as it is not imposed by the Act itself.