§ 552a(b)(1),” and stating further that “[i]t is clear that, for particular purposes, the Privacy Act provides that any government contractor and any employee of such contractor shall be considered an employee of an agency” (citing 5 U.S.C. (b) reveal information about the individual originally obtained on a promise of confidentiality, express or implied. 1986); FDIC v. Dye, 642 F.2d 833, 836 (5th Cir. Apr. release a document that has already been fully aired in the public domain through the press or some other means” but that “the Privacy Act approves those disclosures that are ‘required’ under the [FOIA] . Reg. at 3, 12-13 (W.D. 37 (1) The Privacy Commissioner may, from time to time at the discretion of the Commissioner, carry out investigations in respect of personal information under the control of government institutions to ensure compliance with sections 4 to 8. C-87-1764R, slip op. The D.C. Marginal note:Complaints submitted on behalf of complainants. (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. Oct. 10, 2000); Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. Marginal note:Protected information — solicitors, advocates and notaries. at 1216-17 (citing Laxalt with approval, although ultimately determining that court did not have jurisdiction to rule on merits of case); PHE, Inc. v. DOJ, No. The Privacy Act applies to the government’s collection, use, disclosure, retention or disposal of personal informationin the course of providing services such as: 1. old age security benefits 2. employment insurance 3. border security 4. federal policing and public safety 5. tax collection and refunds The Act applies to federal government institutions listed in Schedule 3 of the Privacy Act, as well as to Crown corporations. Tenn. 1981); Christy v. United States, 68 F.R.D. 3d 266, 275 (Cal. . LEXIS 7513, at *3-8 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 1993) (same finding as in Mangino, despite fact that “court ha[d] not located” applicable routine use). to include intra-agency transfers in the portion of the system notice covering routine uses.”  OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. 1984). May 6, 1998); Forrest, 1996 WL 171539, at *2; Ford Motor Co., 825 F. Supp. 84-2021, slip op. (a) cause to be kept under review the manner in which personal information banks are maintained and managed to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act and the regulations relating to access by individuals to personal information contained therein; (b) assign or cause to be assigned a registration number to each personal information bank; (c) prescribe such forms as may be required for the operation of this Act and the regulations; (d) cause to be prepared and distributed to government institutions directives and guidelines concerning the operation of this Act and the regulations; and. (ii) the name of the government institution that has control of the bank. § 552a(b)(10) (General Accountability Office), “to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the G[overnment] Account[ability] Office.”, “pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”. Co. v. Sutherland, No. The Principles also provide individuals with certain rights to access their … 30, 2011) (discussing disclosure of plaintiff’s workers compensation file to agency officials investigating allegations “directly related to misconduct involving [plaintiff’s] worker’s compensation claim”); Sutera, 708 F. Supp. 2006); Robbins v. HHS, No. (iii) the title and address of the appropriate officer to whom requests relating to personal information contained in the bank should be sent. Always check the SORN for the 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. at 2-3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 1979). 5:08cv336, 2010 WL 4537902, at *6 (S.D. . 93-1420, 1994 U.S. Dist. 762, 767 (D.R.I. Research. 2:05-cv-137, 2007 WL 4358262, at *6 (M.D. We may change this disclosure from time to time. at 7 (C.D. Introduced in the Senate as S. 3418 by Samuel Ervin Jr. (D–NC) on May 1, 1974; Committee consideration by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Passed the Senate on November 21, 1974 (); Passed the House on December 11, 1974 (passed, provisions of H.R. 1987); Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 (9th Cir. 93-2204, 1995 U.S. Dist. Wright v. FBI, 241 F. App’x 367, 369 (9th Cir. (d) the address, fingerprints or blood type of the individual. ]”; finding that member of the panel that recommended that plaintiff be removed from management in response to an EEO informal class complaint “had a need to know the contents of the [EEO] complaint file”), aff’d per curiam, No. . Berry v. Henderson, No. Aug. 26, 2009); Walia v. Chertoff, No. (3) The head of a government institution that receives the services shall provide a copy of the agreement to the Privacy Commissioner and the designated Minister as soon as possible after the agreement is entered into. 2006). LEXIS 94270, at *1 (M.D. Prior to Covert, no other court had ever so held. See, e.g., 66 Fed. at 28,954, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf. if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of the individual who furnished the investigative body with the information. 2011) (finding disclosure to Congressional oversight committee complies with statutory reporting requirements); Alexander v. FBI, 691 F. Supp. 8, 10 (E.D. June 30, 2010) (stating that where the defendant agency objected to disclosing Privacy Act records requested in discovery, “the ‘court order exception’ to the Privacy Act will preclude any future liability for disclosure, thereby alleviating the government’s concern and nullifying its objection”); Rogers v. England, 246 F.R.D. at 3-4 (C.D. But see O’Donnell v. DOD, No. 1995) (unpublished table decision); Lachenmyer v. Frank, No. the person concerned authorises the disclosure. Aug. 9, 2007) (declining to decide “whether a court may ever order a government agency to disclose social security numbers despite the provisions of [the Social Security Act],” and refusing to order disclosure of social security numbers of class members who have not submitted claim forms pursuant to settlement agreement); Barnett v. Dillon, 890 F. Supp. Feb. 13, 1997); Kassel v. VA, 709 F. Supp. 51 (1) Any application under section 41 or 42 relating to personal information that the head of a government institution has refused to disclose by reason of paragraph 19(1)(a) or (b) or section 21, and any application under section 43 in respect of a file contained in a personal information bank designated as an exempt bank under section 18 to contain files all of which consist predominantly of personal information described in section 21, shall be heard and determined by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or by any other judge of the Court that the Chief Justice may designate to hear the applications. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 1996) (unpublished table decision); McNeill v. IRS, No. Must an Agency Obtain a Court Order to Publicly File Protected Records with the Court? On cross-appeals, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on other grounds. (b) information relating to the education or the medical, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved. 2d 199, 207 (D.D.C. (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. 2001) (finding that where a letter was collected by the agency due to its initial interest in investigating plaintiff’s allegations of illegal drug activity by a local law enforcement agency, and was disclosed to that agency’s investigator whose interest was in investigating possible unlawful, non-drug-related activity by plaintiff himself, such disclosure was not proper pursuant to a routine use providing for the disclosure to state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies for law enforcement and regulatory purposes and stating that “it is difficult to see how [the] disclosure could be said to have been compatible with the purpose for which the letter was collected”), aff’d on other grounds, 312 F.3d 563 (2002), cert. Doc. 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. at 764-71. In light of Doe v. Stephens, the decision in Fields v. Leuver, No. Tex. ), s. 12, c. 3 (3rd Supp. at 28,955; see also 120 Cong. Weatherspoon v. Provincetowne Master Owners Ass’n, No. 78-1536, slip op. at 2-3 (D.D.C. Cal. 8:CV89-706, slip op. Sept. 10, 1996) (establishing procedures to be followed by parties “[i]n order to permit the parties to use information relevant to th[e] case without undermining the legislative purposes underlying the Privacy Act” and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Bergman v. Shinseki, No. The court rejected the agency’s argument that disclosure was proper because each questionnaire was disclosed as part of a prosecutive report that (when viewed as a whole) did reveal a potential violation of law. Marginal note:Policing services for provinces or municipalities. 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. 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. 3:00-CV-0535, 2002 WL 32359949, at *5 (N.D. Tex. (i) the council of a participating First Nation as defined in section 2 of the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement Act. EDCV 94-0148, slip op. 2004-105 of February 16, 2004, registered as SOR/2004-23; (h) the deletion of “Department of Social Development/Ministère du Développement social” under the heading “Departments and Ministries of State” by Order in Council P.C. the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); cf. Ohio 2013); cf. La. 73.1 (1) A government institution may provide services related to any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on the head of a government institution under this Act to another government institution that is presided over by the same Minister or that is under the responsibility of the same Minister and may receive such services from any other such government institution. Cal. . Upon the CCPA taking effect, a business’s privacy policy must affirmatively inform consumers of the categories of personal information collected about the consumer, the sources from which that information is collected, the commercial or business purpose for which the personal information is collected, the categories of third parties the information will be shared with, and specific pieces of personal information collected about the consumer. 2002-188 of February 7, 2002, registered as SOR/2002-72; (f) the deletion of “Office of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations of Canada/Bureau de l’infrastructure et des sociétés d’État du Canada” under the heading “Departments and Ministries of State” by Order in Council P.C. May 12, 1998); Magee v. USPS, 903 F. Supp. 2004) (discussing disclosure of employees’ medical records by employer’s health facility to risk management team – due to concerns that employees were illegally receiving prescription drugs – was proper because it conformed with facility’s protocol to discuss issues of potential wrongdoing with upper management); McCready v. Principi, 297 F. Supp. (AAFES), No. 10-10844, 2010 WL 2034775, at *1 (D. Mass. Yet, they have never been successfully challenged on that basis. 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. at 1401-02. Perkins v. United States, No. 12-04922, 2013 WL 5695813, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 3-83-0449-R, slip op. See also Sikes v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 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. Marginal note:Record of disclosures to be retained. Marginal note:Exception for Library and Archives of Canada. 1995) (discussing disclosure of employee’s medical records to clinical psychologist hired by agency to perform fitness-for-duty examination on employee), aff’d, 79 F.3d 1145 (5th Cir. [is] a task clearly within [employees’] duties as federal law enforcement officers”); Thompson v. State, 400 F. Supp. (3) Where a notice has been requested under paragraph (1)(b) but no such notice is received by the Commissioner 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 Commissioner shall so advise the complainant in his report under subsection (2) and may include in the report such comments on the matter as he thinks fit. 08-4991, 2009 WL 2634631 (D.N.J. Marginal note:Delegation by Privacy Commissioner, 59 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Privacy Commissioner may authorize any person to exercise or perform, subject to such restrictions or limitations as the Commissioner may specify, any of the powers, duties or functions of the Commissioner under this Act except, (a) in any case other than a delegation to an Assistant Privacy Commissioner, the power to delegate under this section; and. (2) Nothing in this Act precludes the Privacy Commissioner from receiving and investigating complaints of a nature described in subsection (1) that are submitted by a person authorized by the complainant to act on behalf of the complainant, and a reference to a complainant in any other section includes a reference to a person so authorized. to assess his trustworthiness and make related personnel decisions about his eligibility for security clearance,” to acting U.S. Attorney and division chief, who “[a]s plaintiff’s supervisors . Jan. 24, 2014); Sanders v. Lahood, No. 02-0387, 2004 WL 2451409, at *4-5 (D.D.C. 99-2725, slip op. 1081, 1083 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993); Clavir v. United States, 84 F.R.D. See, e.g., Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 134 (3d Cir. However, because the D.C. . 53 (1) The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint a Privacy Commissioner after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and House of Commons and approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons. 2d 142, 146-47 (D.D.C. It should be noted that none of the “post-Krohn” routine uses – such as the ones cited above which employ an “arguably relevant to the litigation” standard – have been successfully challenged in the courts. (3) The provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act, other than those relating to tenure of office, apply to an Assistant Privacy Commissioner. 1989) (discussing disclosure of security questionnaires to Inspector General for purpose of detecting fraud); Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 354-55 (9th Cir. 7. 1986); Fla. Med. Abernethy v. IRS, 909 F. Supp. ‘each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use.’”), reconsideration granted & vacated in nonpertinent part, (D.D.C. 1, 8-9 (D.D.C. at 5-7 (D.D.C. (b) where appropriate, a request that, within a time specified therein, notice be given to the Commissioner of any action taken or proposed to be taken to implement the recommendations contained in the report or reasons why no such action has been or is proposed to be taken. at 1133-34. 11-2665, 2012 U.S. Dist. 1:CV-90-1072, slip op. 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. 1991) (unpublished table decision); Brown v. FBI, No. . . Mich. Sept. 29, 2009) (discussing FBI’s disclosure of plaintiff’s arrest and indictment on white-collar crimes to financial self-regulatory body where disclosure was required by federal law), aff’d, 427 Fed App’x 497 (6th Cir. Oct. 14, 1983); LaBuguen v. Bolger, No. 1988); NLRB v. USPS, 790 F. Supp. (a) a band, as defined in the Indian Act; (b) the band, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act; (c) the Band, as defined in the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, chapter 27 of the Statutes of Canada, 1986; or. Marginal note:Existence not required to be disclosed. 67 (1) No criminal or civil proceedings lie against the Privacy Commissioner, or against any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner, for anything done, reported or said in good faith in the course of the exercise or performance or purported exercise or performance of any power, duty or function of the Commissioner under this Act. 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. 27, 28, c. 9, s. 28, c. 10, ss. Alford v. Todco, No. 29, 30, c. 43, s. 91, 1995, c. 1, ss. C 10-00647, 2011 WL 2709871, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Id. 18, 2013) (granting limited order for production of  documents as plaintiff, an insurance company, “had a clear need for some of the documents in order to properly develop its arson defense”, which outweighed any potential harm to defendant, especially considering the limited scope of order); United States v. Meyer, No. Osborne v. USPS, No. Reg. 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. 84-2364, slip op. Mich. 1982) (emphasizing emergency nature of exception). 2003); Fattahi v. ATF, 186 F. Supp. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), Council means the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, committees of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Cabinet and committees of Cabinet. 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. However, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified that this principle does not apply to all disseminations of protected records to individuals with prior knowledge of their existence or contents. 2d 30, 39 (D.D.C. Contact the Webmaster to submit comments. App. Under the CCPA, “personal information” is information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular California resident or household. Reg. 2d 1, 20 (D.D.C. See Laxalt, 809 F.2d at 888-89; Weahkee, 621 F.2d at 1082; Hernandez v. United States, No. It should be noted that President Barack Obama’s FOIA policy on openness in government, see Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject:  Freedom of Information Act (Jan. 21, 2009), available at http://whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Freedom_of_Information_Act, as implemented by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject:  The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (Mar. 2013) (denying government’s motion to dismiss by finding that plaintiff “adequately allege[d] that the disclosure regarding his EEO complaint was not on a ‘need to know’ basis for the employees to perform their duties”); Bigelow v. DOD, 217 F.3d 875, 879 (D.C. Cir. 72 (1) Every year the head of every government institution shall prepare a report on the administration of this Act within the institution during the period beginning on April 1 of the preceding year and ending on March 31 of the current year. 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. ), s. 22, c. 11 (4th Supp. . (a) relating to the privacy of individuals, (b) concerning the extension of the rights to which individuals are entitled under this Act in respect of personal information about themselves, and. 2011) (finding a permissible intra-agency disclosure where information was disclosed to an “‘occupational medicine consultant’ under contract with” the Department of Education for purposes of evaluating employee’s risk to coworkers); Ciralsky v. CIA, 689 F. Supp. 16, 78, 2002, c. 7, s. 228, c. 10, s. 191, c. 17, ss. (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. 80-0952, slip op. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)”). 55 (1) The Governor in Council may appoint as Privacy Commissioner under section 53 the Information Commissioner appointed under the Access to Information Act. 2004) (concluding that “[t]he exception in the Privacy Act for actions taken under court order is satisfied here” because scheduling order “specifically incorporated [a provision of the local rules]” requiring parties to exchange “witness lists containing the addresses and telephone numbers of each witness”). 3.1 (1) The Governor in Council may designate a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada to be the Minister for the purposes of any provision of this Act. Cf. 1988), the D.C. Contracting, Inc. v. SSA, No. Marginal note:Court to take precautions against disclosing, 46 (1) In any proceedings before the Court arising from an application under section 41, 42 or 43, the Court shall take every reasonable precaution, including, when appropriate, receiving representations ex parte and conducting hearings in camera, to avoid the disclosure by the Court or any person of, (a) any information or other material that the head of a government institution would be authorized to refuse to disclose if it were requested under subsection 12(1) or contained in a record requested under the Access to Information Act; or.