T1a B45 Privacy Act Research Fdr- Entire Contents- Code- Court Doc- 2 Legal Treatises- 1st Pgs For Ref

Get a Document - by Citation - 5 USCS § 552a

wysiwyg://Content.l07/http://www.lexis.c...WB&_md5=4b2edd8720e80217c492601ae6ac8c:

service: Get by LEXSTAT® TOC: United States Code Service: Code. Const. Rules. Conventions & Public Laws > TITLE 5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES > PART I. THE AGENCIES GENERALLY > CHAPTER 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE > SUBCHAPTER II. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE > § 552a. Records maintained on individuals Citation: 5U.S.C. 552a

•^Select for FOCUS™ or Delivery 5 USCS § 552a UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE Copyright © 2003 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., one of the LEXIS Publishing (TM) companies All rights reserved *** CURRENT THROUGH P.L. 108-21, APPROVED 4/30/03 *** TITLE 5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES PART I. THE AGENCIES GENERALLY CHAPTER 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE » GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION 5 USCS § 552a (2003) § 552a. Records maintained on individuals (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section-(1) the term "agency" means agency as defined in section 552[(f)](e) of this title; (2) the term "individual" means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; (3) the term "maintain" includes maintain, collect, use, or diseminate; (4) the term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph; (5) the term "system of records" means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual; (6) the term "statistical record" means a record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determination about an identifiable individual, except as provided by section 8 of title 13; (7) the term "routine use" means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected; and (8) the term "matching program"(A) means any computerized comparison of(i) two or more automated systems of records or a system of records with non-Federal records for the purpose of~ (I) establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, recipients or beneficiaries of, participants in, or providers of services with respect to, cash or in-kind assistance or payments under Federal benefit programs, or (II) recouping payments or delinquent debts under such Federal benefit programs, or (ii) two or more automated Federal personnel or payroll systems of records or a system of Federal personnel or payroll records with non-Federal records, (B) but does not include(i) matches performed to produce aggregate statistical data without any personal identifiers; (ii) matches performed to support any research or statistical project, the specific data of which may not be used to make decisions concerning the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals; (iii) matches performed, by an agency (or component thereof) which performs as its principal function

I o f 80

6/3/03 10:26 AM

1 of 6 DOCUMENTS MICHAEL G. DEVINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 99-6059 SECOND CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THElSECX 202 F.3d 547; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1196 October 6,1999, Argued •ebruary 1,2000, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (J. Garvan Murtha, Chief Judge), granting summary judgment to the defendant and dismissing the plaintiffs claims under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. We hold that the District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9) as the challenged release of data to Congress was a permitted disclosure. DISPOSITION: Affirmed. COUNSEL: JACK LONG, Clark & Long, Burlington, VT, for Plaintiff-Appellant. CAROL L. SHEA, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont (Charles R. Tetzlaff, United States Attorney, Helen M. Toor, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee. JUDGES: Before: JACOBS, CALABRESI, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges. OPINIONBY: STRAUB OPINION: [*548] STRAUB, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Michael G. Devine appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (J. Garvan Murtha, Chief Judge), granting summary judgment dismissing Devine's claims under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1994 & Supp. [**2] 1999) ("Privacy Act"). Devine contends that the District Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that the release of a letter written by the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice ("IG") to a Congressional subcommittee was a permitted disclosure to Congress pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9). We disagree and, for the reasons that follow, affirm.

BACKGROUND In July 1995, the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") initiated an investigation into allegations that Immigration and Naturalization Service officials, including Devine, had created a false picture of working conditions during a fact-finding visit by members of the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform to Miami on June 10, 1995. These allegations were contained in a complaint signed by nearly fifty INS employees. The complaint was delivered to Congressman Elton Gallegly, former chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform and a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives ("Subcommittee"), who in turn asked the Department of Justice to investigate the matter. The Attorney [**3] General requested that the OIG conduct an investigation and prepare a report with its findings. At the time of these events, Devine served as Deputy Regional Director of the INS's Eastern Regional Office in Burlington, Vermont.

Get a Document - by Citation - 258 U.S. App. D.C. 44

Page 1 of 11

Service: Get by LEXSEE® Citation: 258 U.S. App. D.C. 44

258 U.S. App. D.C. 44; 809 F.2d 885, *; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1144, **/ 6 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1229 PAUL LAXALT v. C. K. McCLATCHY, ET AL, APPELLANTS No. 86-5450 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 258 U.S. App. D.C. 44; 809 F.2d 885; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1144; 6 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1229 October 21, 1986, Argued January 20, 1987, Decided PRIOR HISTORY:

[**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Misc. No. 86-00140. CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant newspaper sought review of an order from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which refused to permit civil discovery of certain Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files that were subject to the Privacy Act (Act), 5 U.S.C.S. § 552a, during a libel action filed by appellee politician against newspaper. OVERVIEW: Politician filed a libel action against newspaper for articles that suggested certain associates and campaign contributors of politician had organized crime ties. During the libel action, newspaper subpoenaed certain FBI records, to prove the truth of newspaper's statements against politician's associates and contributors. The FBI refused to comply without a court order and claimed that the records were exempt from discovery under the Act. Newspaper and the FBI then reached an agreement to produce certain records, including those of the associates and contributors in question, who had intervened in the libel action. The district court entered the agreed order between newspaper and the FBI, and the associates and contributors filed a motion to block discovery of the records. The district court entered an order denying the discovery and dismissing newspaper's action for the records. The district court held that newspaper had failed to demonstrate that it required the reports to defend the libel action. Newspaper sought review. The court held that the district court erred in finding that newspaper had to demonstrate a need for the documents beyond mere relevance to the libel action. OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded the district court's order because the Privacy Act did not create a qualified discovery privilege for the associates and contributors or the FBI, and the district court erred in inferring a privilege, and the records sought by newspaper were relevant and discoverable because no recognized privilege applied. CORE TERMS: discovery, Privacy Act, disclosure, intervenors, ban, order permitting, organized crime, notice, libel, underlying litigation, federal district, protective order, libel action, deposition, subpoena, prerequisite, protective, relevance, exemption, balancing,

http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=2a2c6912cbc 17d 1 c3ce6b6c344662fec&csvc=le&... 6/3/03

FOCUS - 4 of 56 DOCUMENTS KATHERINE LA VERNE GILBREATH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, KATHERINE LA VERNE GILBREATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUADALUPE HOSPITAL FOUNDATION INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, and UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee. U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEBORAH DILL, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, KATHERINE LAVERNE GILBREATH, Defendant-Appellant Nos. 92-5702,92-5750 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 5 F.3d 785; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27255 August 20,1993, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] As Corrected. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. D.C. DOCKET NUMBER SA-92-CA-31. Mag. Robert B. OXTonnor. D.C. DOCKET NUMBER SA-92-CV-52. JUDGE H. F. Garcia Previously Reported as Unpublished Opinion in Table Case format at: 7993 U.S. App. LEXIS 23685.

filed a separate action in the district court to enforce the subpoenas. After all parties in the removed case consented to trial before a magistrate judge, Gilbreath moved for remand and for summary judgment. The magistrate denied both motions and entered a judgment vacating the injunction and ordering the hospitals to comply with the subpoenas. In the enforcement action, the district court also entered a judgment ordering hospital officials to comply with the subpoenas. [**2] In this consolidated appeal, Gilbreath challenges both judgments. Finding no error on the part of the magistrate judge or the district court, we affirm. I.

JUDGES: Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. OPINIONBY: PER CURIAM OPINION: t*787] PER CURIAM: Katherine Gilbreath filed an action in Texas state court seeking to enjoin the enforcement of subpoenas issued to the defendant hospitals by an administrative judge on behalf of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7204(b)(2)(A). When the state court entered an injunction, the MSPB intervened and removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The MSPB also

On December 30, 1990, Katherine Gilbreath and her son, Van, were treated for gunshot wounds at Baptist Memorial Hospital and Guadalupe Valley Hospital (the Hospitals). Local newspapers reported that Gilbreath's husband, Vance, had shot his wife and son during a domestic disturbance. Vance Glibreath was arrested and subsequently indicted on two counts of attempted murder. The charges ultimately were dismissed. In April 1991, Vance Gilbreath's employer, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), an agency of the federal government, removed him from his position as a Supervisory Subsistence Management Specialist. The DLA cited the alleged shootings as one of the grounds for Mr. Gilbreath's removal, nl In particular, the DLA submitted that there was extensive publicity about the shootings in local newspapers and that the incident had caused the employees he supervised to lose confidence in him and had undermined his effectiveness in dealing