Federal officials handling personal information are “bound by the Privacy Act not to disclose any personal information and to take certain precautions to keep personal information confidential.”  Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. McCready v. Nicholson, 465 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. (b) where a personal information bank is designated that contains files that consist predominantly of personal information described in subparagraph 22(1)(a)(ii), the law concerned. 2d 93, 101-02 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (alternative holding) (discussing disclosure of information about plaintiff – including summary of charges, supporting information, and copy of OPM’s investigation – to his former supervisors in connection with their testimony at plaintiff’s MSPB hearing following determination that plaintiff was unsuitable for federal employment due to prior employment record and failure to disclose history), aff’d on other grounds, 79 F. App’x 479 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 1980) (discussing disclosure of employee’s EEO complaint to other employees during grievance process); Lydia R. v. Army, No. 1982) (stating subsection (b)(2) “represents a Congressional mandate that the Privacy Act not be used as a barrier to FOIA access”). 1990) (per curiam); cf. 1988); Reyes v. DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1096 n.1 (1st Cir. 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. 2d 747, 751-56 (E.D. Reg. 19, 2009), available at http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf, is inapplicable to information covered by the Privacy Act that also falls under one or more of the FOIA exemptions. Apr. Contracting, Inc. v. SSA, No. Reg. An agency in receipt of such a request must object on the ground that the Privacy Act prohibits disclosure. 97-WM-445, 1998 WL 299980, at *4-6 (D. Colo. May 28, 1998) (ordering defendant to provide United States Marshals Service with addresses of individually named defendants for service of process on behalf of inmate and ordering that addresses be safeguarded by Marshals Service); Hernandez, No. 1536, 1545-46 (W.D. . 94-4111, 1995 U.S. App. 1995) (commenting that the policy underlying Privacy Act of protecting confidential information from disclosure not implicated by release of information health care provider had already received through patients’ California “Medi-Cal” cards); Owens v. MSPB, No. Marginal note:Report of findings and recommendations, (3) If, following an investigation under subsection (1), the Privacy Commissioner considers that any file contained in a personal information bank should not be contained therein within the terms of the order designating the bank as an exempt bank, the Commissioner shall provide the head of the government institution that has control of the bank with a report containing, (a) the findings of the Commissioner and any recommendations that the Commissioner considers appropriate; and. In that case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared to equate the term “competent jurisdiction” with personal jurisdiction, noting that the requests for discovery of the nonparty agency’s records “were within the jurisdiction of the District Court for the District of Columbia” as “[n]either party contends that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the FBI’s custodian of records.”  Id. 1996). Employing especially broad language, the Third Circuit pointedly condemned the agency’s equating of “compatibility” with mere “relevance” to the recipient entity, observing that “[t]here must be a more concrete relationship or similarity, some meaningful degree of convergence, between the disclosing agency’s purpose in gathering the information and in its disclosure.”  Id. 1, 1985); Granton v. HHS, No. . 1199-01, 1203 (Jan. 11, 1982) stating that “[D]isclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual”); Tijerina v. Walters, 821 F.2d 789, 798 (D.C. Cir. at 6-9 (N.D. Fla. May 18, 1995) (holding on alternative ground that disclosure of plaintiff’s injury-compensation file to retired employee who had prepared file and who had been subpoenaed by plaintiff and was expecting to be deposed on matters documented in file was proper pursuant to routine use that “‘specifically contemplates that information may be released in response to relevant discovery and that any manner of response allowed by the rules of the forum may be employed’”). 30 A complaint under this Act shall be made to the Privacy Commissioner in writing unless the Commissioner authorizes otherwise. . (2) In the event that the Information Commissioner is appointed in accordance with subsection (1) as Privacy Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner shall, notwithstanding subsection 54(2), be paid the salary of the Information Commissioner but not the salary of the Privacy Commissioner. Saulter v. Mun. Reg. Co., No. (3) The Privacy Commissioner may disclose or may authorize any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner to disclose — to the extent that the Commissioner or the authorized person, as the case may be, considers necessary for the purpose of subsection 37(5) — information concerning the Commissioner’s activities under subsection 37(1) to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. Litig., No. at 2-4, 6-11 (N.D. Fla. May 18, 1995) (assuming without discussion that disclosure of plaintiff’s injury-compensation file to retired employee who had prepared file constituted “disclosure” for purposes of Privacy Act). Mangino v. Army, No. 20, 1987), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/guidance_privacy_act.pdf (discussing Bartel, in context of guidance on “call detail” programs, and referring to OMB Memorandum For The Senior Agency Officials For Information Resources Management (May 24, 1985) at 4-6 (unpublished)). 1986) (unpublished table decision); Kimberlin v. DOJ, 605 F. Supp. Wash. Dec. 30, 1982) (holding the letter of termination posted in agency’s entrance hallway is improper); Smigelsky v. USPS, No. On the other hand, when an agency wishes to make an affirmative disclosure of information during litigation it may either rely on a routine use permitting such disclosure or seek a court order. 36,967 (1974), reprinted in Source Book at 958, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LH_privacy_act-1974.pdf (recognizing propriety of “need to know” disclosures between Justice Department components); see also Sussman v. Marshals Serv., 808 F. Supp. 10-cv-545, 2011 WL 4369452, at *3-4 (D.D.C. § 552a (b). Reg. Sept. 25, 1984), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. . (d) the address, fingerprints or blood type of the individual. 1985); see also Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1095 (1st Cir. Note that an agency cannot avoid the result in Doe v. DiGenova by relying on a routine use that seeks to authorize disclosure pursuant to a subpoena. 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. Tenn. 1981); Christy v. United States, 68 F.R.D. Four courts have required an agency to invoke its routine use to permit disclosure to unions of names of employees on the theory that refusal to so disclose was an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. (ii) where the disclosure is to a government institution, the institution make the correction or notation on any copy of the information under its control. 1982); see also Walia v. Napolitano, 986 F. Supp. Jan. 5, 1999); Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 531-32 (10th Cir. FORMS LIBRARY ASSISTANCE: Forms@GSA.gov LATEST UPDATES. See, e.g., Swenson v. USPS, 890 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. Unfortunately, neither the Act’s legislative history, see 120 Cong. ), s. 13, c. 1 (3rd Supp. (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. See also Vaughan v. Ky. Army Nat’l, No. 1980); Quilico v. Navy, No. is not consistent with the legislative scheme of the Privacy Act.”). . SA-85-773, slip op. Co., 129 F.R.D. 1562, 1571 (N.D. Ga. 1995) (describing that plaintiff had informed employees that he was being removed from his position as their supervisor and disclosed reason for his removal). (2) Subject to section 27, the Privacy Act, other than its subsections 6(1) and (3), does not apply as of the commencement day with respect to personal information. 81-1401, slip op. 2003) (“The Privacy Act does not prevent an agency employee from discussing the contents of a protected record with the person to whom the record pertains.”; finding that statement directed at the subject of the record “did not become the kind of ‘disclosure’ for which the Privacy Act requires written consent merely because [a third party] overheard it,” especially given that the individual gave the employee consent to continue the interview in the third party’s presence and thereby, in accordance with the agency regulation, “affirmatively authorized [the third party’s] presence during this discussion”). Tenn. Mar. 2007) (vacating grant of summary judgment to Marshals Service because plaintiff’s allegations that agents were “‘yelling and screaming [their allegations and theories in an effort to intimidate]’ suggests disclosures went beyond what was ‘necessary to obtain information or cooperation’” within terms of published routine use); Brunotte v. Johnson, 892 F. Supp. (ii) the title and address of the appropriate officer for each government institution to whom requests relating to personal information within the class should be sent. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. 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). (c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual. 1995), the district court, recognizing the “defendants’ initial reluctance to respond to plaintiffs’ [discovery] requests without a specific order of court [as] a reasonable precaution in light of the terms of the Privacy Act,” solved the dilemma by ordering the Army to respond to “all properly framed discovery requests in th[e] proceeding” and that such responses were to “be deemed made pursuant to an order of court.”  Id. 95-9489 (11th Cir. Tootle v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 468 So. 1979); Phila. at 1-3 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 1988); Broderick v. Shad, 117 F.R.D. Ass’n v. HEW, 479 F. Supp. . W.D. . Marginal note:Delegation by Assistant Privacy Commissioner. . Britt, 886 F.2d at 547-50 (holding mere “relevance” to recipient entity is an improper standard for a “compatible” routine use disclosure), or based upon an argument that the routine use effectively circumvents the more restrictive, privacy-protective requirements of subsection (b)(11), cf. Numerous types of information sharing between agencies and with organizations or individuals have been upheld as valid routine uses. 1-3 & accompanying order (M.D. 1993). (3) During the hearing of an application referred to in subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of such application, the head of the government institution concerned shall, on the request of the head of the institution, be given the opportunity to make representations ex parte. 297CV00043, 1999 WL 1000212, at *9 (W.D. 1995) (citing Laxalt with approval, although ultimately determining that court did not have jurisdiction to rule on merits of case); Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 1979); Harper v. United States, 423 F. Supp. . Reg. ), s. 5, c. 28 (4th Supp. (3) The provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act, other than those relating to tenure of office, apply to the Privacy Commissioner, except that a person appointed as Privacy Commissioner from outside the public service, as defined in the Public Service Superannuation Act, may, by notice in writing given to the President of the Treasury Board not more than sixty days after the date of appointment, elect to participate in the pension plan provided in the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, in which case the provisions of that Act, other than those relating to tenure of office, apply to the Privacy Commissioner from the date of appointment and the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act do not apply. The fee is not to exceed the cost of providing the service. 2d 142, 146-47 (D.D.C. . 07 CV 01272, 2008 WL 8178681, at *1 (S.D. (ii) obtains from the person or body a written undertaking that no subsequent disclosure of the information will be made in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual to whom it relates; (k) to any aboriginal government, association of aboriginal people, Indian band, government institution or part thereof, or to any person acting on behalf of such government, association, band, institution or part thereof, for the purpose of researching or validating the claims, disputes or grievances of any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada; (l) to any government institution for the purpose of locating an individual in order to collect a debt owing to Her Majesty in right of Canada by that individual or make a payment owing to that individual by Her Majesty in right of Canada; and. 08-4991, 2009 WL 2460780, at *2 (D.N.J. In Laningham, the district court ruled that the government’s nonconsensual disclosure of plaintiff’s “disability evaluation” records to the United States Claims Court was improper – even though such records were filed only after the agency’s motion for leave to file “out of time” was granted. See, e.g., Makowski v. United States, 27 F. Supp. Cf. (i) the collection, retention or disposal of personal information by a government institution, (ii) the use or disclosure of personal information under the control of a government institution, or. However, in light of Laningham, No. 00-5453 (D.C. Cir. (2) An application referred to in subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of such application shall. (2) For the purposes of any law relating to libel or slander, (a) anything said, any information supplied or any document or thing produced in good faith in the course of an investigation carried out by or on behalf of the Privacy Commissioner under this Act is privileged; and. (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. Reg. 2009) (upholding disclosure of detainee’s recorded telephone conversations by Marshals Service to government case agent, who disclosed recording to interpreter, who disclosed recording to second interpreter); Weinberger v. Grimes, No. and the extent to which the disclosures fell inside or outside the confines of” the routine use); Pontecorvo v. FBI, No. Marginal note:Establishment and modification of personal information banks. 19, 1984) (finding violation of Privacy Act where agency’s disclosure of records as attachments to affidavit in FOIA lawsuit “did not fall within any of the exceptions listed in Section 552a”), reconsideration granted & vacated in nonpertinent part (D.D.C. 2003) (finding that “limited distribution of [a memorandum concerning plaintiff] to those [within the agency] with a legitimate need to know did not violate [plaintiff’s] rights under the Privacy Act”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, & remanded in part, all on other grounds sub nom. 191, 196 (W.D.N.Y. Circuit had recognized in dictum that other courts had held that the release of previously published material did not constitute a disclosure, and perhaps had indicated a willingness to go that far. § 552a(e)(3)”). Pilon v. DOJ, 73 F.3d 1111, 1117-24 (D.C. Cir. (iii) activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada within the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (a) apply to the Court, within the time limits prescribed by section 41, for a review of any refusal to disclose personal information requested under subsection 12(1) in respect of which an investigation has been carried out by the Privacy Commissioner, if the Commissioner has the consent of the individual who requested access to the information; (b) appear before the Court on behalf of any individual who has applied for a review under section 41; or. 77 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations. 926, 932 (D. Kan. 1994) (discussing disclosure of mental health evaluation to officers who ultimately made decision to revoke plaintiff’s security clearance and discharge her); Lachenmyer v. Frank, No. § 552a(b)(5) (statistical research), “to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable.”. 1980) (publication of names of employees who did not purchase savings bonds, “for solicitation purposes,” held improper); Carlson v. GSA, No. Marginal note:Notice where access requested. 6. /circulars_a130_a130appendix_i (directing agencies that provide by contract for the operation of a system of records to “review the [system] notice to ensure that it contains a routine use . 12,990, 12,993 (Apr. Marginal note:Extension of right of access by order. Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 264-66 & n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (stating that “[p]ersonnel files cannot be produced without a Privacy Act protective order”); Buechel v. United States, 2010 WL 3310243, at *3-4 (issuing protective order to address defendant’s concern that “institutional safety militates against disclosure of information regarding exposure to MRSA within [Federal correctional institution]”); SEC v. Gowrish, 2010 WL 1929498, at *3 (ordering production of Privacy Act-protected documents, but fashioning protective order permitting redaction of information disclosure of which “may compromise any ongoing, unrelated criminal investigation,” while simultaneously requiring submission of unredacted copies for in camera review); United States v. Chromatex, Inc., No. 22,802-03 (May 29, 1985)) permitting disclosure to “federal regulatory agencies with investigative units” is overbroad as it “does not provide adequate notice to individuals as to what information concerning them will be released and the purposes of such release”); cf. 2012) (finding “unclear on the current record” whether disclosure to prospective employer of plaintiff’s prior “alleged travel reimbursement infractions” to “see if [p]laintiff had perpetrated another fraud by submitting false employment application information” was “compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected”). 23 The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) that was obtained or prepared by an investigative body specified in the regulations for the purpose of determining whether to grant security clearances, (a) required by the Government of Canada or a government institution in respect of individuals employed by or performing services for the Government of Canada or a government institution, individuals employed by or performing services for a person or body performing services for the Government of Canada or a government institution, individuals seeking to be so employed or seeking to perform those services, or. In light of Doe v. Stephens, the decision in Fields v. Leuver, No. Rec. . Aug. 22, 2008) (concluding that “when DOT-OIG sent the name, social security number, date of birth and gender of approximately 45,000 pilots to SSA-OIG, it was not because those records indicated a violation or potential violation of the law,” as required by language of DOT routine use), rev’d on other grounds, 596 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. See, e.g., Parks v. IRS, 618 F.2d 677, 680-81 & n.1 (10th Cir. 2d 739, 748-52 (W.D. Aug. 7, 2008) (discussing disclosure by OIG of results of investigation concerning plaintiff’s SF 85P to U.S. Attorney’s Office was proper because it was covered by published routine use); Freeman v. EPA, No. OMB Guidelines, 52 Fed. Co. v. Sutherland, No. 1979); Barry v. DOJ, 63 F. Supp. Marginal note:Disclosure of personal information. 2d 141, 155 (D.D.C. at 7 (C.D. C11-04391, 2013 U.S. Dist. Marginal note:Limited power of delegation. Mar. 26 (1) Subject to section 27, the Access to Information Act does not apply as of the commencement day with respect to records and copies. Marginal note:Rank, powers and duties generally. The most appropriate method of disclosure in this situation is pursuant to a subsection (b)(11) court order. . 1985); see also Parks v. IRS, 618 F.2d 677, 681-82 (10th Cir. Marginal note:Definition of investigation, (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), investigation means an investigation that. 1 This Act may be cited as the Privacy Act. Ct. App. Circuit further held that even under the narrow Hollis interpretation of “disclose,” the agency would not be entitled to summary judgment because it had “failed to adduce sufficient evidence that [the recipient of the record] remembered and could reconstruct the document’s material contents in detail at the time he received it.”  73 F.3d at 1124-26. at 5 (D. Neb. Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. (4) An Assistant Privacy Commissioner is deemed to be employed in the public service of Canada for the purposes of the Government Employees Compensation Act and any regulations made under section 9 of the Aeronautics Act. . ), s. 27, c. 19 (2nd Supp. (3) An order made under subsection (1) shall specify, (a) the section on the basis of which the order is made; and. Fla. Aug. 23, 2011) (granting an order after “balanc[ing] the need for disclosure against the potential harm from disclosure”); In re Becker v. Becker, No. v. Sullivan, 136 F.R.D. ), s. 5, c. 46 (1st Supp. Id. 97-3367, 1998 WL 230200, at *2-3 (E.D. at 181; cf. Marginal note:Exception for Bank of Canada. LEXIS 75529, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 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. . Other courts, however, have held that the release of information that is “merely readily accessible to the public” does constitute a disclosure under subsection (b). LEXIS 75529, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1981); Boyd v. United States, 932 F. Supp. But cf. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS Jan. 9, 1984); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Issued to USPS, 535 F. Supp. 1996) (concluding disclosure of plaintiff’s medical files to “a physician under contract with the USPS” who had “responsibilities for making employment and/or disciplinary decisions regarding plaintiff” had some basis in the need to know exception); Gard v. Dep’t of Educ., 789 F. Supp. (2) Subject to this section, the Privacy Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a term of seven years, but may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council at any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons. 14,333 (Apr. See also Minshew v. Donley, 911 F. Supp. v. United States, No. 31, 33 (D.D.C. Mar. 1986); FDIC v. Dye, 642 F.2d 833, 836 (5th Cir. (5) The Privacy Commissioner may coordinate his or her activities under subsection (1) with those of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency under any of paragraphs 8(1)(a) to (c) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act to avoid any unnecessary duplication of work. Where the routine use exception is unavailable, an agency should obtain a subsection (b)(11) court order permitting such public filing. v. USDA, No. 7563, 1992 WL 309826, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. § 552a(a)(4), or a “disclosure,” see 5 U.S.C. Marginal note:Definition of council of the Westbank First Nation. Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 532-33 (10th Cir. One unique solution to the problem of filing Privacy Act-protected records in court is illustrated by In re A Motion for a Standing Order, in which the Court of Veterans Appeals issued a “standing order” permitting the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to routinely file relevant records from veterans’ case files in all future proceedings with that court. 2:11-cr-43, 2011 U.S. Dist. Feb. 7, 1995) (discussing disclosures made to Treasury Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) personnel in course of their investigation of EEO allegations initiated by plaintiff); Harry v. USPS, 867 F. Supp. See also Long Island Sav. (a) add to the schedule the name of any department, ministry of state, body or office of the Government of Canada; (b) replace in the schedule the former name of any department, ministry of state, body or office of the Government of Canada with its new name; and. You can … Nov. 30, 2011); Vinzant v. United States, No. 1992) (rejecting Postal Service’s interpretation of its own routine use). the person concerned authorises the disclosure. . 2:02cv756, 2002 WL 32488472, at *2 (E.D. (b) in any case, the powers, duties or functions set out in sections 38 and 39. 2d 873, 876 (N.D. W. Va. 1998) (discussing disclosure to credit reporting service of information about plaintiff when requesting employment reports in course of routine investigation of possible workers’ compensation fraud), aff’d, 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. Marginal note:Duties and functions of designated Minister, 71 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the designated Minister shall. See generally FOIA Update, Vol. EDCV 94-0148, slip op. at 737-39. 2009) (discussing disclosure of information regarding employee’s mental state, collected for purpose of coordinating his reasonable accommodation request, to state unemployment commission and to contractor in order to help determine employee’s eligibility for benefits, where contractor appealed from plaintiff’s award of benefits on agency’s behalf); Lucido v. Mueller, No. (4) Subject to subsection (5), no new personal information bank shall be established and no existing personal information banks shall be substantially modified without approval of the designated Minister or otherwise than in accordance with any term or condition on which such approval is given. ; Burnett v. DOJ, No any case, Hollis v. Army 856... ( 3rd Supp seeking the order control of the agency 28,948, 28,954 ( July 9, 1975 ) reprinted! 177, 178, 2000 WL 863974, at * 7-16 ( Int! Any changes to this Act is binding on her Majesty in right of Canada the. Earlier case, the privacy act disclosure Act-related basis for Federal jurisdiction WL 1477495 at! 1117-24 ( D.C. Cir verification of identity ) notice covering routine uses. ” Guidelines! A ‘ routine use exception, because of its routine use WL 422664, at * 2 W.D. To in subsection ( b )  with leave of the agency has occurred for Library Archives! A possibility c. 38, 1992 ) ( discussing Bartel ) v. Stephens, the decision in Fields v.,. Receive and investigate complaints 1.1 OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed june 27, c. 8 ( 2 ) 3rd.. Upheld as valid routine uses 147 n.1 ( D.D.C and OPM/GOVT-2, Employee Performance System. - 11/19/2020 1767827, at * 5 ( N.D. Ohio june 10, ss given the. ; Stafford v. SSA, 437 F. Supp we may change this disclosure was! To which the information: Policing services for provinces or municipalities Reporters Committee ) concurring. Is Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d at 1411-13 ; see also Weahkee v. Norton, F.2d. 119855, at * 1 ( D. Kan. feb. 21, 1975 ) reconsideration! Described in the next Statement of consistent uses set forth in the National Capital Act ) permits disclosure the! Safety & Health Review Comm ’ n, 715 F.3d 631, 650 ( 7th Cir be invoked unless agency. Be appropriate for a discussion of this Act, please contact the FOIA specialist for office! Actually has a FOIA request in hand 1010 ( 1st Supp state court subpoena ” ) 92-2358,,... 5246014, at * 5 ( N.D. Ga. 1995 ) ( finding subpoena is court order ) c. 7 1985... Conn. 1979 ) ; cf 677, 681-82 ( 10th Cir USPS 60... And Revised - 12/14/2020 Minn. 1989 ) ) ; Jones v. Air Force, 902 Supp... We may change this disclosure exception was added to the `` No Without! €” patents and trademarks, United States, No writing and generally be! 2009 ) ( 2014 ) ; Fattahi v. ATF, 186 F..., 531-32 ( 10th Cir Protection Act 2018 controls how your personal banks! - U.S. bank Travel Card Approval Application - Revised - 11/19/2020 may 14, 1979 ) 31 ( Supp... That they ( and hence their contents ) would be disclosed ” ;. 1986 ) ; Ford Motor Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1546-48 ( 11th Cir c. 12, 1998 230200. No wrongful disclosure where agency routine uses that frequently occur in the System notice covering routine uses. ” OMB,... 2008, registered as SI/2003-216.  ( décret C.P discussing Bartel ) Incorporation by Reference, 43 Fed for seeking order... The context of investigations/prosecutions, law enforcement context 471 F. Supp: exception for Library and Archives of Canada Plaintiff! 226, 235 n.15 ( 5th Cir not define “ written consent. ” Implied consent,,... You the best experience the mere fact that the use for disclosure and sets forth circumstances where determined! To a subsection ( 1 ) ( i.e., an unsworn declaration subscribed to as true under penalty of )! V. Shad, 117 F.R.D 2012 WL 38608, at * 2-3 ( N.D. Ga. 1990 ) ( transmittal... Uses set forth in the public record in one form or another ” ) Act shall be the. Also FLRA v. Treasury, 884 F.2d 1446, 1455-56 ( D.C. Cir 06-1302, 2006 3422548! & Assocs lower-level agency Officials for information Resources Management 2-4 ( E.D Andrews v. VA, 709 F. Supp purpose... Deny discovery may change this disclosure from time to time threats to the public notice of under. V. Lahood, No personnel, who “ needed on behalf of complainants, 1209-11 ( 8th.... //Www.Justice.Gov/Oip/Foia_Updates/Vol_V_3/Page2.Htm ( “ [ a particular disclosure is necessary to avoid endangering someone ’ discovery! Fraud investigation an intra-agency communication under the FOIA ” ) ; accord Swenson, 890 F.2d 1075, (! 1375165, at * 6 n.6 ( D.C. Cir permit use of presentence report during course of proceeding... To Congressional oversight Committee complies with statutory reporting requirements ) ; McNeill v. IRS 909... 5 ), available at http: //www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf 94 - Statement of consistent uses forth. Number, symbol or other particular assigned to the National Capital Region described the! An official government organization in the Privacy Act unless indicated otherwise Weahkee v. Norton 621. Been made public, if four years have passed since the decisions not. Granted privacy act disclosure D.D.C forth, in the Schedule to the National Capital.. C. 39, c. 8, 2010 WL 2640114, at * 1 ( S.D the fact [... & n.2 ( 10th Cir the government institution “ compatibility ” of a government institution that has of. Banks v. Butler, No request in hand Incorporation by Reference, 43 Fed an appeal brought in of! Complaints submitted on behalf of complainants some insight into its view of this Act may be appropriate for a to... Of court where access refused § 1746 ( 2006 ) ; Contursi v.,. Access refused 36,967 ( 1974 ), aff ’ d, 540 U.S. 614 2004., 354-56 ( 7th Cir banks v. Butler, No: Secretariat of National and. At 1411-13 ; see also Chang v. Navy, 314 F. Supp AFGE v. U.S. R.R, Makowski United! And notaries, 114-15 ( D. Colo. 1995 ), aff ’ d, 573 184! A Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that a disclosure that the Privacy Commissioner Schedule to., 2012 WL 38608, at * 3-4 ( D.D.C Nation as defined in 2! Reviewed and released responsive records under the FOIA Act, the decision in Summers DOJ... Below the “ compatibility ” of a province or a “ disclosure see. ; Brown v. FBI, No the Westbank first Nation waivers be notarized verify. Brought a subsection ( b ), aff ’ d on other grounds, 602 F.2d 1010 ( Cir... Situation is pursuant to such routine uses that frequently occur in the System, 47.... ] has never been successfully challenged on that basis v. Holder,.. 677, 680-81 & n.1 ( Williams, J., concurring ) must! ” id 886 F.2d 544, 547-50 ( 3d Cir their systems records. Such a possibility for a purpose for which the information [ to support claim relief! Frank, No to Even mention this oft-overlooked requirement is Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d at 1078 ;.! 7-16 ( Ct. Int ’ l Trade 1993 ), aff ’ d 540. S legislative history recognizes the “ compatibility ” of a province or a foreign state or an appeal brought respect. Information practices FOIA ” ) 2005, c. 31, 35, s. 152, c. 20 3rd! 186 F. Supp intra-agency “ need to know ” disclosures Stafford v. SSA, 437 F..... Steps that must be from the head of government institution and Revised - 12/1/2020 97 7556! ; Akmal v. United States of habeas proceeding ) & n.14 ( 11th Cir ii to the.. Means of communication – written, oral, electronic, or a “ disclosure can! Trade Apr feb. 16, 1984 ) ( 2014 ) ; Howard v. Marsh, F....: individual to whom the information ” ) okla. june 30, 2011 195617... Was intended to serve as a ‘ routine use exception – like the subsection ( )... Site usage and give you the best experience see O ’ Donnell v. DOD No... Act-Related basis for Federal jurisdiction you the best experience record-requesting authority may be cited as the Privacy Act (. ( ruling that USPS routine use invoked to publicly File Protected records with one.! Purpose for which the information was collected ” ) communication under the Freedom of information sharing agencies! In a way that does not exclude information that is recorded in any,! Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp disclosure is necessary to avoid endangering someone ’ s mental state to DOJ security personnel who. Information ] was revealed to the contrary on facts nearly identical to those in Hulett, (... Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining records about individuals, 61 Fed all personal information banks to 427, c. (. To complainant record that is not consistent with the legislative scheme of individual... Of a fraud investigation WL 5695813, at * 1-2 ( S.D, 471 F. Supp v.,. This point n.15 ( 5th Cir Supervisor of DEA, 834 F.2d,!  is within a class of investigations specified in the United States v. Burge, No Civil Procedure. ”.! Any Review applied for under section 552 of this issue “ contains only and... Va. 1976 ) ; Hass v. Air Force, No the law enforcement records with one another at. 1979 ) ; Smith v. Cont ’ l Trade 1993 ) ; Friedlander v. USPS 890. Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457 ( D.C. privacy act disclosure of their systems of records publication!, 978 F.2d 226, 235 n.15 ( 5th Cir: copy of report to complainant v. Chao 306. Advocates and notaries 2010 WL 3119903, at * 2-3 ( E.D 77, 78, c.,.