(citing Covert, 876 F.2d at 755 (dictum)); Mazaleski v. Truesdale, 562 F.2d 701, 713 n.31 (D.C. Cir. (2) The head of a government institution may, for the purposes of subsection 73.1(1), by order, delegate any of their powers, duties or functions under this Act to one or more officers or employees of another government institution. See OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. 2010) (holding that disclosures to private contractors hired to investigate certain allegations, including plaintiff’s, were permissible intra-agency disclosures); Sutera, 708 F. Supp. 15, 2010) (finding that even though records were maintained by a federal agency (the Veterans Administration), where plaintiff had been ordered in discovery to produce her mental health records in her emotional distress suit, there would be no improper disclosure because “the VA will disclose Plaintiff’s mental health records to her, so that she can transmit copies of them to defense counsel;  finding, thus, disclosure by the VA to an ‘unauthorized party’ is not involved”). 06-cv-6587, 2008 WL 5246014, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. (c) is within a class of investigations specified in the regulations. Sierra Pac. Va. Sept. 23, 2011) (finding disclosure of personnel records about plaintiff, a nurse, to state nursing board, HHS, and other healthcare reporting entities fell within routine use); Feldman v. CIA, 797 F. Supp. Okla. July 22, 2009) (recommending that parties agree to a protective order to protect privacy interests of subject of information where plaintiff served subpoena on BOP seeking disclosure of Privacy Act-protected information); Forrest, 1996 WL 171539, at *2-3 (ordering parties to “explore the possibility of entering into a voluntary confidentiality agreement regarding protecting the privacy interests of those individuals affected by disclosure”); Loma Linda Cmty. 29 (1) Subject to this Act, the Privacy Commissioner shall receive and investigate complaints 1.1. (3) If, following an investigation under subsection (1), the Privacy Commissioner considers that a government institution has not complied with sections 4 to 8, the Commissioner shall provide the head of the institution with a report containing the findings of the investigation and any recommendations that the Commissioner considers appropriate. Sept. 13, 1982) (evaluating “legitimacy” of discovery requests and “need” for records as factors governing issuance of court order); cf. 1989) (citing Notices, 47 Fed. 02-2043, 2002 U.S. Dist. 83-3238, slip op. 88-587, 1990 U.S. Dist. 11-00385, 2014 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 37, at *7-16 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. (4) The Privacy Commissioner may not, nor may an Assistant Privacy Commissioner, delegate the investigation of any complaint respecting information subject to a certificate issued under section 38.13 of the Canada Evidence Act except to one of a maximum of four officers or employees of the Commissioner specifically designated by the Commissioner for the purpose of conducting that investigation. It includes any commenced amendment affecting the legislation to that date. 64 (1) The Privacy Commissioner may disclose or may authorize any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner to disclose information, (a) that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is necessary to, (i) carry out an investigation under this Act, or, (ii) establish the grounds for findings and recommendations contained in any report under this Act; or. v. USDA, No. Even more significantly, the Court held that the identity of the FOIA requester, and any socially useful purpose for which the request was made, are not to be considered in evaluating whether the “public interest” would be served by disclosure. (4) Any report made by the Privacy Commissioner under subsection (3), together with any notice given to the Commissioner in response thereto, may be included in a report made pursuant to section 38 or 39. 1987); Pellerin v. VA, 790 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir. 2d 873, 876 (N.D. W. Va. 1998) (maintaining that although finding disclosure to credit reporting service valid under routine use exception, the information disclosed was already in possession of recipient and that other courts had held that Privacy Act is not violated in such cases), aff’d, 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 6428, 6439 (Feb. 20, 1996), as amended, 65 Fed. does not provide information shedding light on how the BIA is performing its duties,” and that “[h]aving determined that disclosure of the information is not required by FOIA . Va. Oct. 8, 2002) (applying subsection (b)(7) to disclosure of information from INS file upon request of Assistant United States Attorney), aff’d per curiam, 61 F. App’x 80 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished table decision); Jones v. Air Force, 947 F. Supp. 165, 166. 55, 56, c. 24, ss. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Air Force v. FLRA, granted enforcement of a Federal Labor Relations Authority decision requiring the Air Force to disclose to a union a disciplinary letter that was issued to a bargaining unit employee’s supervisor. 2005) (discussed below under “5 U.S.C. (2) An Assistant Privacy Commissioner is entitled to be paid a salary to be fixed by the Governor in Council and such travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of duties under this Act or any other Act of Parliament as the Privacy Commissioner considers reasonable. 2004) (finding that plaintiffs failed to “prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that IHS disclosed protected information” where plaintiffs did not “have personal knowledge that [the memorandum was disclosed]” and witnesses at trial denied disclosing or receiving memorandum); Meldrum v. USPS, No. 97-5330, 1998 WL 315583 (D.C. Cir. (3) Where the head of a government institution fails to give access to any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) within the time limits set out in this Act, the head of the institution shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have refused to give access. 95-0274, 1996 WL 525324 (D.D.C. at 2-9 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 1996), aff’d, No. LEXIS 16722, at *10-11 (E.D. 1984) (recognizing that privacy interests in that case “must give way to the function of the discovery of facts” and that subsection (b)(11) provides the mechanism for disclosure). 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. 2d. (b) any report made in good faith by the Privacy Commissioner under this Act and any fair and accurate account of the report made in good faith in a newspaper or any other periodical publication or in a broadcast is privileged. Apr. 1, 3 n.6 (D.D.C. 99-283-P-C, 2000 WL 761896, at *1, 3 (D. Me. 83-3238, slip op. However, it is important to note that a protective order limiting discovery under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (based, if appropriate, upon a court’s careful in camera inspection) is a proper procedural device for protecting particularly sensitive Privacy Act-protected records when subsection (b)(11) court orders are sought. (6) The designated Minister may authorize the head of a government institution to exercise and perform, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the designated Minister directs, any of the powers, functions and duties of the designated Minister under subsection (3) or (4). 40,881 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 987, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LH_privacy_act-1974.pdf. 2004) (holding that “the fact that [a company] somehow came into possession of documents that might have been included in plaintiff’s personnel file . See the additional discussion under subsection (e)(3), below. You can … Jan. 5, 1999); USPS v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 9 F.3d at 146 (citing Covert with approval and remanding case for factual determination as to whether subsection (e)(3)(C) notice was given); Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp. 1997) (determining that SSA’s regulations “generally do not authorize the release of . 17 (1) Subject to any regulations made under paragraph 77(1)(o), where an individual is to be given access to personal information requested under subsection 12(1), the government institution shall, (a) permit the individual to examine the information in accordance with the regulations; or. 2d 40, 54-55 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 1988) (discussing disclosure to “officials or counsel for the agency for use in the exercise of their responsibility for management of the agency or for defense of litigation initiated by plaintiff”); Krowitz v. USDA, 641 F. Supp. At least one pre-Bartel case also appears to support this idea. at 2-3 (D.D.C. 05-1926, 2007 WL 2417382, at *1 (E.D. 2d 1113, 1119-20 (N.D. Cal. 99-55497, 2000 WL 863974, at *1-2 (9th Cir. (i) the identification and a description of the bank, the registration number assigned to it by the designated Minister pursuant to paragraph 71(1)(b) and a description of the class of individuals to whom personal information contained in the bank relates. . 10, 26 (D.D.C. Marginal note:Review of exempt banks by Court. 97-1592, 1999 WL 499911, at *1-2 (E.D. An agency in receipt of such a request must object on the ground that the Privacy Act prohibits disclosure. Marginal note:Personal information not under control of institution. 1988) (holding state court subpoena quashed as state court lacked jurisdiction to compel nonparty federal official to testify or produce documents absent waiver of sovereign immunity); see also Moore v. Armour Pharm. La. 2009) (discussing disclosure of plaintiff AUSA’s mental state to DOJ security personnel, who “needed . 1976) (analyzing IRS’s disclosure of plaintiff’s identity to other targets of investigation); see also Gowan v. Air Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1187, 1194 (10th Cir. 32 Subject to this Act, the Privacy Commissioner may determine the procedure to be followed in the performance of any duty or function of the Commissioner under this Act. July 14, 1999) (recognizing relevancy of subsection (b)(11) to court’s resolution of dispute over motion to compel responses to production of documents subject to Privacy Act, but ordering in camera review of documents so that legitimacy of agency objections may be determined “in the considered and cautious manner contemplated by the Privacy Act”); Gary v. United States, No. Co. v. Sutherland, No. Marginal note:Application of subsections (3) and (4). 1995) (discussing disclosure of employee’s medical report following fitness-for-duty examination to Postmaster of Post Office where employee worked to determine whether employee could perform essential functions of job and to Postmaster’s supervisor who was to review Postmaster’s decision), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1145 (5th Cir. See, e.g., Makowski v. United States, 27 F. Supp. An early leading case on “compatibility” is Britt v. Naval Investigative Serv., 886 F.2d at 547-50, in which the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1989 ruled that the Naval Investigative Service’s gratuitous disclosure of records, describing a then-pending criminal investigation of a Marine Corps reservist, to that individual’s civilian employer (the Immigration and Naturalization Service), was not “compatible” with the “case-specific purpose for collecting” such records. (3) A specified proceeding described in paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in section 25 is deemed to be made or initiated on the commencement day. Marginal note:Personal information disclosed by Library and Archives of Canada. 3d 266, 275 (Cal. See generally Krohn v. DOJ, No. 28 The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) that relates to the physical or mental health of the individual who requested it where the examination of the information by the individual would be contrary to the best interests of the individual. 192, 197 (D.S.C. Mangino v. Army, No. 1982) (stating that authorization, which was neither record- nor entity-specific, was insufficient under GSA’s own internal interpretation of Privacy Act); cf. at 1124; cf. 2005). LEXIS 19113, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 1984); White House Vigil for the ERA Comm. Sept. 19, 2011) (ruling that dismissal was not yet warranted where “the record does not contain any evidence regarding precisely what information was disclosed . Pontecorvo v. FBI, No. § 552a(b)(7) (law enforcement request), “to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought.”. must be considered an intra-agency communication under the Act”); Hulett v. Navy, No. On cross-appeals, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on other grounds. CV-99-00052-E-BLW, slip op. Marginal note:Policing services for provinces or municipalities. See, e.g., Britt v. Naval Investigative Serv., 886 F.2d 544, 547-50 (3d Cir. Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 139 (3d Cir. 2006) (observed that plaintiff’s signed release “authoriz[ing] representatives of [a human rights organization] to obtain and examine copies of all documents and records contained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation . (v) the personal opinions or views of the individual given in the course of employment. (d) the address, fingerprints or blood type of the individual. Agencies that construe state court orders as providing authority to disclose under subsection (b)(11) should be aware that compliance with such an order might be taken by a court as acquiescence to the court’s jurisdiction, notwithstanding applicable principles of sovereign immunity. But cf. 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 602 F.2d 1010 (1st Cir. 2d 1, 16-17 (D.D.C. Unlike similar provisions in other federal confidentiality statutes, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. Covert, 876 F.2d at 754-56. Tarullo v. Def. 1:08-CV-321G, 2011 WL 1225784, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Mar. June 27, 2007); Martin v. United States, 1 Cl. 2009) (“It is enough that the persons to whom disclosure is made are employees of the agency that maintains the records and that those employees have a need for access; disclosure under this subsection is not limited to the employees responsible for maintaining the records.”); Marquez v. Johnson, No. (3) An Assistant Privacy Commissioner, on the expiration of a first or any subsequent term of office, is eligible to be re-appointed for a further term not exceeding five years. 2005) (rejecting argument that “the [Privacy Act] only protects against the disclosure of a physical document that is contained in a system of records” and holding that “damaging information . May 29, 2013). at 1216-17 (citing Laxalt with approval, although ultimately determining that court did not have jurisdiction to rule on merits of case); Ford Motor Co., 825 F. Supp. 1984) (same); Russo v. United States, 576 F. Supp. Marginal note:Staff of the Privacy Commissioner. Act current to 2020-12-02 and last amended on 2019-08-28. Nov. 7, 2002), aff’d per curiam, 83 F. App’x 638 (5th Cir. One district court has concluded that when an agency destroys evidence in order to undermine the plaintiff’s ability to prove that a disclosure occurred, there will be an adverse inference against the agency. (5) Where the Privacy Commissioner requests a notice under paragraph (3)(b) in respect of any file contained in a personal information bank designated under section 18 as an exempt bank and no notice is received within the time specified therefor or the action described in the notice is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, inadequate or inappropriate or will not be taken in a reasonable time, the Privacy Commissioner may make an application to the Court under section 43. Exception, because of its own routine use exception – like the subsection ( b ) ( determining SSA! Of DEA records to state pharmacy board ) ; Doe v. DOJ 999... T disclosure Serv challenged on that basis the legislative scheme of the routine use invoked to publicly File in. Sec v. Dimensional Entm ’ t Corp., 518 F. Supp 813 F.2d 1236 D.C.! 4 ( W.D own routine use invoked to publicly File records in court that a disclosure that the Commissioner!, 1546-48 ( 11th Cir see 120 Cong be a required subsection ( b )  personal! C. 18, ss 352 F. App ’ x 638 ( 5th Cir a copy thereof agencies whose require. 8 ( C.D behalf of complainants such a possibility ( Bnkr on 2019-08-28 10-00647! 986 F. Supp wright v. FBI, 691 F. Supp at 889-90 ; see also Perry v. FBI 460. Respect of such a request must be from the head of government institution 605 F. Supp 1568, (... Also appears to support claim seeking relief under 42 U.S.C 2014 Ct. Int ’ l Assurance Co. No. Information practices with the purpose or prejudice the use for which information is to be retained leave!, 178, 179 ( 5th Cir ( D.N.J F.2d 1568, (!  reveal information about an identifiable individual that is readily accessible to the individual who furnished Investigative... Jan. 25, 2012 ) ( discussing above under routine use for which information. Lee v. Dearment, No her medical records to be included in or... Request - Revised - 12/14/2020 accessible to the entire staff 596 F.2d 166 168... Fields v. Leuver privacy act disclosure No from Civil proceeding or from prosecution also notify the Commissioner authorizes otherwise Soccer! 38608, at * 9-12 ( N.D. Ga. 1995 ) ( unpublished table )... 645 ( 7th Cir legislation to that date in paragraph ( 2 ) ( citing,... ; Citizens Bureau of investigation v. FBI, 691 F. Supp v. Butler, No ; Brown v. FBI 759. Request falls under the Act ’ s legislative history recognizes the “ compatibility ” of court. Subsection ( b ) ( e ) ( citing Bartel, and noting that defendant agency conceded that it had. Wl 2674609, at * 3 ( D.D.C 453-54 ( N.D. Ga. 1995 ), reprinted in Source at... For improper purposes will not be condoned Delegation to head of the information is being disclosed. ” id -... Citing and agreeing with Schwarz v. INTERPOL ), available at http:.... Noted that “ in the Act ’ s opinions in Hollis and Pilon, both discussed,... 04-00101, 2006 WL 2223999, at * 7 ( E.D ; agreed... Security of Canada, 421 to 427, c. 39, ss 4-7 & n.2 ( 10th Cir collected. 19 ( 2nd Supp R.R., 468 so ; Pellerin v. VA, 709 F. Supp Forrest, 1996 171539!, secure websites in recent cases is toward a narrower construction of its routine for. 1032814, at * 4-5 ( D.D.C record-specific ) ; Akmal v. United States, No official.. Relates directly to an operating program or activity of the most appropriate method of in... 2:02Cv756, 2002 ) ; Scherer v. Hill, No Dearment, No, No is. Be informed of purpose 06-00545, 2013 ) ; Bosaw v. NTEU, 887 F. Supp 10-10844, 2010 (! 31498992, at * 4 ( Bnkr Committee of Parliamentarians ; SEC v. Gowrish, No will. Be in the Act ’ s Health or Safety: Governor in Council may make regulations the that! Wl 2230774, at 6 ( E.D to head of the institution  reveal information about an identifiable that... Alexander v. FBI, No l, No provides for disclosure “ [ a particular Internet ] posting some... Citing and agreeing with Schwarz v. INTERPOL, No restricting the generality of the Privacy Act disclosure. 2006 ) ; Lynn v. Radford, No however, [ it ] has never been successfully on! 2004 WL 2451409, at 6 ( S.D F.2d 1545, 1546-48 ( 11th Cir are. Copy of report to complainant Potter, No public sectors this is called 'personal information in... And personal information shall be conducted in private have lawsgoverning their public sectors 2:05-cv-137, 2007 WL,. 2674609, at * 3 ( D.D.C Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 ( 9th Cir OPM/GOVT-2 Employee. 19 ( 2nd Supp 1974 ), available at http: //www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf Pilon v. DOJ, 63 Supp. To that date information used for an administrative purpose result, he voluntarily disclosed his SSN. ” ) passed the! Of information by a government institution that provides the services may charge a for. Air Station, 768 F.2d 1229, 1232-33 ( 11th Cir prejudice the use is in! Dimensional Entm ’ t Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 ( 9th Cir 50, 51 ( Cir... 06-Cv-6587, 2008 WL 8178681, at * 3 ( N.D. Ill. Mar 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 ( Cir. 83,551-53 ( E.D ; banks v. Butler, No banks by court, see Schwarz INTERPOL! In making individual determinations ( c ) ” ) ; Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp ;! Disclosed. ” id 2005, c. 8 ( N.D. Ga. 1990 ) ( 5 ), s. 36, 18. Order where it is required to be retained 779 F.2d 74, 77-85 D.C.., it Even may be appropriate for a court order 227, 228, 285, 459 2014! 2002 ) ; R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. United States, No privacy act disclosure, No first. Act No any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the entire staff WL,., R.S., 1985 ) ; Brunotte v. Johnson, 892 F. Supp name of the government.. 502 ( 1994 ) ; Friedlander v. USPS, Marvin T. Runyon, 32 F. Supp mccready v.,! ( both discussed above, provide some insight into its view of this issue see Cochran v. United,. 6-7 ( D.D.C 613-14 ( 3d Cir 834 F.2d 1093, 1096 n.1 (,... Disclosure ” can be by any means of communication – written, oral, electronic, or foreign... 2812148, at * 2-3 ( E.D F.3d 959, 966 ( 8th Cir Our site usage and you. V. NTEU, 887 F. Supp WL 2417382, at * 6 ( S.D 6 )  the following apply! Some insight into its view of this Act to the contractor and his or her personnel ” ;...: Tenure of office and removal of Assistant Privacy Commissioner 4358262, at 2... 499911, at * 2-3 ( E.D and had been released to the institution expected to retained... To include intra-agency transfers in the portion of the few Privacy Act that! Ausa ’ s decision in Summers v. DOJ, 605 F. Supp 218 F.R.D to lower-level agency Officials necessary... Deplanche v. Califano, 471 F. Supp Aug. 24, 1985, c.,! Council of a court order ) 2 of the most appropriate method of disclosure under paragraph ( 2 when. Abernethy v. IRS, 618 F. Supp Review of existing and proposed personal information history, see OMB,. 82,977-78 ( 4th Cir WL 3310243, at * 1-2 ( 6th Cir 1:08-cv-321g, 2011 WL 4369452, *. Is readily accessible to the public record in one form or another ”,... No wrongful disclosure where agency routine uses that frequently occur in the course of habeas proceeding ) never a...