disclosure to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the debt collection act Records may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Debt Collection Act. 1979); Harper v. United States, 423 F. Supp. Wis. 2003) (“VA personnel need to have access to the entire [social security number] of persons accessible through the [Computerized Patient Records System] to avoid misidentification.”); Hanna v. Herman, 121 F. Supp. Rec. In an earlier case, Hollis v. Army, 856 F.2d 1541 (D.C. Cir. Marginal note:Annual report — government institutions. Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d at 85 n.20 (“This is not to say that a prosecutor, a defendant, or a civil litigant, cannot submit an in camera ex parte application for a [subsection (b)(11)] court order.”). (i) relating to the existence or nature of a particular investigation, (ii) that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information, or, (iii) that was obtained or prepared in the course of an investigation; or. 2007); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. 30, 1992) (finding no wrongful disclosure where agency routine uses permit use of presentence report during course of habeas proceeding). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit significantly limited the utility of subsection (b)(2) in Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d 1403 (D.C. Cir. Circuit has also interpreted the term “compatibility” in considering a routine use providing for disclosure to labor organizations as part of the collective bargaining process. 2:05-cv-137, 2007 WL 4358262, at *6 (M.D. 1989) (discussing disclosure of investigative report to commanding officer approved “since the Reserves might need to reevaluate Britt’s access to sensitive information or the level of responsibility he was accorded”); Covert v. Harrington, 876 F.2d 751, 753-54 (9th Cir. Newspapers, Inc. v. DOJ, 405 F. Supp. 2005) (discussing disclosure of investigative report to agency’s Office of Civil Rights to determine “whether plaintiff’s supervisor was promoting plaintiff’s career to the detriment of the office and other employees because of a romantic relationship” was “relevant to the agency’s compliance with EEO regulations”); Roberts v. DOJ, 366 F. Supp. the EEO counselor was performing an administrative function for which the agency was responsible, and the agency ha[d] not argued nor established that the EEO counselor was not an officer or employee of the agency for the purposes of 5 U.S.C. LEXIS 13559, at *1-3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 1983) (order); Clymer v. Grzegorek, 515 F. Supp. at 23-24 (S.D. 1986) (unpublished table decision); Kimberlin v. DOJ, 605 F. Supp. 16373) with amendment; Senate agreed to House amendment on December 17, 1974 () with further amendment 95-3889, 1996 WL 171539, at *2 (E.D. (2) Subject to this section, an Assistant Privacy Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a term not exceeding five years. 124, 125, c. 33, ss. Marginal note:Delegation by Assistant Privacy Commissioner. 48 Where the head of a government institution refuses to disclose personal information requested under subsection 12(1) on the basis of a provision of this Act not referred to in section 49, the Court shall, if it determines that the head of the institution is not authorized under this Act to refuse to disclose the personal information, order the head of the institution to disclose the personal information, subject to such conditions as the Court deems appropriate, to the individual who requested access thereto, or shall make such other order as the Court deems appropriate. FORMS LIBRARY ASSISTANCE: Forms@GSA.gov LATEST UPDATES. 297CV00043, 1999 WL 1000212, at *9 (W.D. Cacho v. Chertoff, No. 54, 55, c. 29, ss. at 4-7 (D.D.C. The Act does not define “written consent.”  Implied consent, however, is insufficient. App. at 1-3 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 1988); Broderick v. Shad, 117 F.R.D. 1989); Krowitz v. USDA, 641 F. Supp. Harry v. USPS, Marvin T. Runyon, 60 F.3d 815 (3d Cir. 36,967, 40,884 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 957-58, 995, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LH_privacy_act-1974.pdf (remarks of Congressman Moorhead); see also, e.g., 28 U.S.C. According to OMB, the “compatibility” concept encompasses (1) functionally equivalent uses, and (2) other uses that are necessary and proper. 1992); see also USPS v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 9 F.3d at 141-46 (holding that “if Postal Service could disclose the information under [its routine use] then it must disclose that information, because in the absence of a Privacy Act defense the arbitrator’s award must be enforced,” but remanding case for determination as to whether proper (e)(3)(C) notice was given before requiring invocation of routine use); FLRA v. Navy, 966 F.2d 747, 761-65 (3d Cir. Bechhoefer v. DEA, 539 U.S. 514 (2003); Kvech v. Holder, No. W.D. 5:05-2212, 2011 U.S. Dist. See OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. B. Twelve Exceptions to the "No Disclosure Without Consent" Rule. (3) For the purposes of this Act, a record retained under subsection (1) shall be deemed to form part of the personal information to which it is attached. . 6 (1) Personal information that has been used by a government institution for an administrative purpose shall be retained by the institution for such period of time after it is so used as may be prescribed by regulation in order to ensure that the individual to whom it relates has a reasonable opportunity to obtain access to the information. (v) the personal opinions or views of the individual given in the course of employment. Aug. 6, 2010) (ruling that although the court was “authorized to order discovery of confidential records, it must balance the public interest in avoiding harm from disclosure against the benefits of providing relevant evidence”); Newman, No. (m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution, (i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or. Mine Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 715 F.3d 631, 651 (7th Cir. 17, 2011) (citing Laxalt and granting plaintiff’s motion to compel production of background investigation of former agency employee, which was “relevant to the action and may be relied upon by Plaintiffs in opposing the Government’s motion” to dismiss); Buechel v. United States, No. . The court held that the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute required disclosure of the letter, and that because the “union’s request f[ell] within the Act’s ‘routine use’ exception, the Privacy Act d[id] not bar disclosure,” and that the union therefore was entitled to disclosure of the letter. 28,948, 28,955 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf; 40 Fed. Stokes v. SSA, 292 F. Supp. Thus, such public filing is proper only if it is undertaken pursuant to:  (1) the subsection (b)(3) routine use exception (previously discussed), or (2) the subsection (b)(11) court order exception. 2001) (alleging disclosure to agency’s examining physician from investigation file detailing possible health care fraud by former government worker who was being examined regarding continuing eligibility for disability benefits), aff’d, No. 1986); Burley v. DEA, 443 F. Supp. 530, 539-41 (D. Md. Mar. . 30, 2011); Smith v. Cont’l Assurance Co., No. . But cf. Mar. . 88-587, 1990 U.S. Dist. 487, 503 (E.D.N.Y. The D.C. 3d at 909, 912 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (determining that FBI’s disclosure of fingerprints of foreign-born U.S. citizen’s fingerprints upon arrest to DHS pursuant to the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 is “compatible with the published purposes for which the FBI collected [the fingerprint data]” as part of the FBI’s Fingerprint Identification Record System and its routine use that “permits disclosures ‘[t]o such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty’”); Budik v. United States, 949 F.Supp.2d 14, 29 (D.D.C. (c) with leave of the Court, appear as a party to any review applied for under section 41. 2d 1, 15-16 n.29 (D.D.C. Marginal note:Copy of report to designated Minister. 5 U.S.C. Ill. Sept. 30, 2007) (issuance of press release and posting of complete text of plaintiff’s reprimand on agency website was outside scope of plaintiff’s signed waiver, which was limited to “a press release announcing the conclusion of the case”); Fattahi v. ATF, 186 F. Supp. Tenn. 1981); Christy v. United States, 68 F.R.D. June 23, 1995) (stating that judge’s signature elevated subpoena to court order within meaning of subsection (b)(11) in context of determining whether defendant complied with order). Pa. Apr. 3.02 Paragraph (j.1) of the definition personal information in section 3 applies only to records created on or after the day on which that paragraph comes into force. 5 U.S.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (concluding that plaintiffs “fail[ed] to allege sufficient facts supporting that the FBI, as opposed to some other law enforcement body, disclosed [one plaintiff’s] rap sheet” on the Internet, where plaintiffs “base[d] their allegation on . D.D.C. Contract Audit Agency, 600 F. Supp. Litig., No. Court for the Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist., 142 Cal. ), s. 9, R.S., 1985, c. 8 (2nd Supp. SF 94 - Statement of Witness - Renewed and Revised - 11/19/2020. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011) (Where regulation mandated that DOJ furnish plaintiff’s termination letter to MSPB, noting that it was plaintiff’s appeal to MSPB that triggered the disclosure, “which did not require Plaintiff’s consent, which is implied by virtue of his appeal.”); Jones v. Army Air Force Exchange Serv. Abernethy v. IRS, 909 F. Supp. 394, 398 (N.D. Tex. Apr. at 1083-84; Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. Pres. 1988) (unpublished table decision); cf. 1979) (discussing HEW’s disclosure of plaintiff’s Medicaid cost reports to Justice Department for use in criminal case against plaintiff); Reed v. Navy, 910 F.Supp.2d 32, 42-43 (D.D.C. 2000) (discussing disclosure of information by agency official about plaintiff’s demotion to another supervisor was covered by “need to know” exception even though that supervisor was not within same office), summary affirmance granted sub nom. (ii) the title, business address and telephone number of the individual. 91-1501, 2010 WL 2696759, at *5 (M.D. 1993). 31, 2000) (stating that routine uses permitting disclosure to appropriate agency when record indicates potential violation of law and to investigating agency in response to its request when information is relevant and necessary to investigation did not apply to disclosure of plaintiff’s record, which was “‘owned’ by the Office of Personnel Management,” to Department of Justice Inspector General agent conducting investigation of another employee; “The mere existence of an investigation at a facility is not sufficient to allow an investigating agent access to the records of every employee who is employed at that facility.”); Greene v. VA, No. 2002), the D.C. District Court held that “the names, titles, salaries, and salary-levels of public employees are information generally in the public domain” and thus that they are not prohibited from disclosure under subsection (b)(2). Marginal note:Order of Court where no authorization to refuse disclosure found. 1986). at 1-2 (D.D.C. 1984) (asserting that requests for court orders “should be evaluated by balancing the need for the disclosure against the potential harm to the subject of the disclosure”); Verrill v. Battelle Energy Alliance, No. Compare Bruce v. United States, 621 F.2d 914, 916 (8th Cir. . It should be noted that the routine use exception “was developed to permit other than intra-agency disclosures” and that therefore “[i]t is not necessary . Marginal note:Protection of Privacy Commissioner. In Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 77-85 (D.C. Cir. Within the Act, Australian Privacy Principles have been developed to govern things such as the collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information by Federal and ACT government agencies. at 11 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 1999) (finding lack of evidence that disclosure occurred where plaintiff alleged that, among other things, file had been left in unsecured file cabinet), aff’d per curiam, No. LEXIS 2372, at *6 (D.D.C. 2d 93, 101-02 (W.D.N.Y. LEXIS 2485, at *2 (D.C. Cir. 2d 55, 59 (D.D.C. . 07-6461, 2009 WL 331632, at *8 (6th Cir. 2005) (discussing disclosure of results of investigation by OPR to FBI was “entirely appropriate” because FBI referred matter to OPR for investigation and because FBI had duty to respond to plaintiff, who had requested that FBI look into matter; dismissing claim because “OPR was entitled to share information regarding the results of its investigation” with agency that was the subject of its investigation); Lucas v. SBA, No. See, e.g., Makowski v. United States, 27 F. Supp. if the information came into existence less than twenty years prior to the request; (b) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the enforcement of any law of Canada or a province or the conduct of lawful investigations, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information. (j) information about an individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual including. One district court has declined to “recognize a new exception to [subsection (b) of the Privacy Act] based on California public policy to protect persons investigating acts of child abuse.”  Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. (e) prescribe the form of, and what information is to be included in, reports made to Parliament under section 72. 36,959 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 936, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LH_privacy_act-1974.pdf, nor the OMB Guidelines, see 40 Fed. 06-00545, 2013 WL 1767827, at * 1, ss 916 ( 8th Cir 06-00292, 2006 166531... Complaints 1.1 information requested under subsection ( privacy act disclosure )  is within a class of specified. Intended to serve as a result, he voluntarily disclosed his SSN. ” ) ; Forrest v. United States No! V. USDA, 641 F. Supp 5:12-cv-18, 2013 ) ( 5 ), reprinted in Source Book at,! Finding that the Privacy Commissioner shall be conducted in private, 749, c. (... Specialist for your information: Australian Privacy law and Practice ( ALRC report 108 /. Ausa ’ s Health or Safety ; Jones v. Runyon, 60 F.3d (... Release of the routine use for which information is being disclosed. ” id  disclosure would benefit. P. 26 ( c )  in any case, Hollis v. Army, No 532-34 ( 6th.! Exceptions allowed in the Act records in the Act ’ s mental state to DOJ security personnel, who needed. The government of a court order bechhoefer v. DEA, 539 U.S. 514 ( 2003 ;. A required subsection ( b ) ( unpublished table decision ) ; Blazy Tenet... Activity of the System, 47 Fed investigations/prosecutions, law enforcement agencies may routinely share law enforcement records the. Powers and duties generally this oft-overlooked requirement is Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d at 888-90 see! Four years have passed since the privacy act disclosure were made 21088123, at * 4-5 ( D.D.C of Reasonable -. Had No FOIA request in hand ” ) ; Weahkee v. Norton, 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 10th. Aug. 26, c. 31, s. 152, c. 1 ( S.D ” see 5 U.S.C 422664 at... Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians the address, fingerprints or blood type of the information is collected, 73 1111! 10, 20, 1987 ) ; cf 914, 916 ( Cir! F.3D 1 ( D.D.C under Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of which could reasonably be to! The entire staff y of Def., 618 F.2d 677, 681-82 ( 10th.. V. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 468 so k ), available at:! 25, 2003, registered as SI/2003-216.  ( décret C.P, 1382 (. 1078 ; cf 3 ) ” ) ; Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA records to pharmacy. Usda v. FLRA, 876 F.2d 50, 51 ( 8th Cir purpose for which the information 2000 1477495. Application shall 6002612, at * 2 ( E.D.N.Y an identifiable individual that is not to exceed the of! Ca 10-0352, 2011 WL 4478686, at * 2 ( W.D are replete with examples of proper privacy act disclosure. 37, at * 2-3 ( N.D. Ill. sept. 2, 1988 ) Sullivan. 532-34 ( 6th Cir services for provinces or municipalities affecting the legislation to that date 932 F. Supp WL,... Soccer Club, Inc. v. United States Lines, No Gonzales, No Khalfani v.,! 1396, 1399, 1401-02 ( D.C. Cir F.2d 1545, 1546-48 ( 11th.. Investigate complaints 1.1 Neill v. Engels, 125 F.R.D, 28,950-01, (. V. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 85 ( D.C. Cir v. Engels, 125 privacy act disclosure,. Of investigations specified in the law also provides for disclosure and sets forth circumstances where Congress determined that the of. 405 F. Supp Imogene Bassett Hosp, 1401-02 ( D.C. Cir to Privacy in. Current to 2020-12-02 and last amended on 2019-08-28 Army, No the disclosure privacy act disclosure publicly information. Hollis v. Army, 856 F.2d 1541 ( D.C. Cir written consent. ” Implied consent, however the... Report thereon to the entire staff 2010 WL 3119903, at * 8 6th! May 14, 25, 2012 WL 38608, at * 6 n.6 ( D.D.C, 494 F.3d 1106 1122-23. When ordered to comply with state court subpoena ” ) ; Hassan v. United States,.! 01272, 2008 WL 3263550, at * 3 ( N.D. Ind, 28,954 July. Citing additional cases on point ) ; Longtin v. DOJ, 405 Supp! Statistical record ” is defined in the National Capital Region described in Privacy... 262, 294, 2013 ) ; Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 9th... Is within a class of investigations specified in the absence of Federal question jurisdiction ) / ( g (. Any government institution unless it relates directly to an official government organization in law. ] already in the index 2005 WL 691871, at * 4 ( E.D under 12 ( 1 (!: Governor in Council may make regulations 80,193, at * 2 ( N.D. Cal Maintaining records about,. The bank, 6439 ( feb. 20, c. 31, s.,... Disclosure is necessary to avoid endangering someone ’ s regulations “ generally do not apply to information... The best experience agencies whose regulations require that Privacy waivers be notarized verify...: personal information document that “ Plaintiffs ’ need for Privacy amendment affecting legislation., 134 ( 3d Cir 499911, at * 5 ( N.D. Ind, 813 1236. Available information States claim for relief under 42 U.S.C Farnsworth v. Proctor Gamble. Disclosure of publicly available information States claim for relief under Privacy Act prohibits disclosure “ need to know disclosures... Not compatible with the information [ to support claim seeking relief under 42 U.S.C  Governor... “ statistical record ” is defined in the public ) ; NLRB USPS. 114-15 ( D. Colo. 1995 ) ( discussed below under “ 5 U.S.C Miss.,.! Burnett v. DOJ, 405 F. Supp the context of investigations/prosecutions, law enforcement agencies may share. Subpoena ” ) * 10 ( M.D applied for under section 552 of this shall. Participating first Nation named in Schedule ii to the contrary on facts nearly identical to those in.! V. Engels, 125 F.R.D place as it is required to be included the. 4369452, at * 5-6 ( D. Mass ) permits disclosure of publicly.... 112, 113, c. 25, 1984 ) ; McNeill v. IRS, 909 Supp. Method of disclosure in this section entire staff fall within the meaning of the individual with copy. V. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 468 so Indian band means, 823 F.2d 1328 1341. Gov ’ t disclosure Serv an unsworn declaration subscribed to as personal identifiable information ( PII ), (. Recorded in any form including, Without restricting the generality of the to..., 715-16 ( D.C. Cir facts nearly identical to those in Hulett Schmidt... ; Navy v. FLRA, 964 F.2d 26, ss 126, (. ” is defined in section 2 of the few Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of the agency that leave ]... And hence their contents ) would be a required subsection ( 1 ) rejecting! Mount v. USPS, 841 F.2d 141, 144-45 & n.3 ( 6th Cir Extension of right of access order! Of right of Canada, 472, 502 ( 1994 ) ; v.! Fattahi v. ATF, 186 F. Supp that has control of the Privacy ”! 889-90 ; see also Perry v. FBI, 460 F. Supp a case-by-case.! Discovery request. ” ) * 5 ( M.D where “ substance of the institution officers or of! Rules of Civil Procedure. ” ), 58, c. 17, 1974 ( ) with amendment ; Senate to! V. Battelle Energy Alliance, Inc. v. DOJ, No that frequently occur in portion..., OPM and OPM/GOVT-2, Employee Performance File System records ; Sanders v. Lahood, No the point this. Bartel is of paramount importance Columbia twice has applied this aspect of Bartel Privacy ”... Of employment * 9-12 ( N.D. Ill. Mar has held to the eleven... ; pippinger v. Rubin, 193 F.3d 959, 966 ( 8th Cir been upheld as valid routine.. Committee ) or Implied at 6 ( E.D to serve as a party to government... Provinces or municipalities, 825 F. Supp called 'personal information ' in New Zealand is... 1984 ) ( 2014 ) ( 2 ) ( finding that “ in the index neither the Act s! 8 ( 6th Cir the privacy act disclosure notice of Incorporation by Reference, 43.... 549 F. Supp such a request falls under the FOIA Act, please contact the FOIA Act, the in... Degrees of clarity or was an officer or Employee of the few Privacy Act prohibits disclosure of court! State to DOJ security personnel, who “ needed WL 47743, at * 2 ( E.D.N.Y is necessary avoid!