1985). One court has held that subsection (k)(5) protects source-identifying material even where the identity of the source is known. Testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in federal government service – the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process. 1983) (access), superseded by statute on other grounds, Central Intelligence Agency Information Act, Pub. of Cal., No. “required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records.”. 2d 898, 905 (E.D. Privacy Act Exemptions The Privacy Act (5 USC 552a) generally provides that any person has a right—enforceable in court—of access to federal agency records in … Circuit held that an agency cannot insulate itself from a wrongful disclosure damages action (see 5 U.S.C. at 1512 (noting that “justification need not apply to every record and every piece of a record as long as the system is properly exempted” and that “[t]he general exemption applies to the whole system regardless of the content of individual records within it”). 7:06-CV-00131, 2006 WL 771718, at *1 (W.D. Jewett v. State, No. 1979) (dismissing access claim, but not wrongful disclosure claim, on ground that record system was exempt from subsection (g) because regulation mentioned only “access” as reason for exemption); Nakash, 708 F. Supp. See Dupre v. FBI, No. L. No. 2013); Arnold v. U.S. Secret Serv., 524 F. Supp. 1990) (regarding amendment); Wentz v. DOJ, 772 F.2d 335, 337-39 (7th Cir. Although the issue has not been the subject of much significant case law, the OMB Guidelines explain that the “Provided, however” provision of subsection (k)(2) means that “[t]o the extent that such an investigatory record is used as a basis for denying an individual any right, privilege, or benefit to which the individual would be entitled in the absence of that record, the individual must be granted access to that record except to the extent that access would reveal the identity of a confidential source.”  OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. July 9, 1985); see also Alford v. CIA, 610 F.2d 348, 349 (5th Cir. 30, 2011); Keyes v. Krick, No. 08-1269, 2009 WL 1636422, at *1 (D.D.C. § 552a(j) (regarding final sentence); see also 5 U.S.C. 1996). (quoting Exec. 1996), vacated & remanded, 209 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 1979) (“None of the additional conditions found in Exemption 7 of the FOIA, such as disclosure of a confidential source, need be met before the Privacy Act exemption applies.”); see also Reyes, 647 F. Supp. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Mo. 90-1489, slip op. 571, 572-73 (E.D. June 7, 1983) (holding that investigation prompted by a “hotline” tip and conducted to avoid fraud, waste, and abuse qualified under (k)(2)); Frank v. DOJ, 480 F. Supp. § 552(b)(1). On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that while it “would not go quite that far,” as agencies “must use subsection (k)(5) sparingly,” agencies may make determinations that promises of confidentiality are necessary “categorically,” as “[n]othing in either the statute or the case law requires that [an agency] apply subsection (k)(5) only to those particular reviewers who have expressly asked for an exemption and would otherwise have declined to participate in the peer review process.”  Henke v. Commerce, 83 F.3d 1445, 1449 (D.C. Cir. § 552(b)(7)(D) (2006), it requires an express promise of confidentiality for source material acquired after the effective date of the Privacy Act (September 27, 1975). Pa. May 16, 1988) (regarding amendment); Yon v. IRS, 671 F. Supp. La. Required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records. 3:09-931, 2010 WL 619175, at *4 (D.S.C. 1993), summary affirmance granted, No. This provision shields information that is compiled in anticipation of court proceedings or quasi-judicial administrative hearings. Id. In Sterling, the District Court for the District of Columbia stated that the plaintiff was “not barred from stating a claim for monetary damages [under (g)(1)(D)] merely because the record did not contain ‘personal information’ about him and was not retrieved through a search of indices bearing his name or other identifying characteristics,” 798 F. Supp. Privacy Act Exemptions The Privacy Act (5 USC 552a) generally provides that any person has a right – enforceable in court – of access to federal agency records in which that person is a subject, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions. at 1241. ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. See Irons v. Bell, 596 F.2d 468, 471 (1st Cir. (P-H) ¶ 80,038, at 80,114 (D. Utah Jan. 9, 1980) (dictum) (addressing SEC investigatory files). (citing Londrigan v. FBI, 670 F.2d 1164, 1170 (D.C. Cir. The OIG disputed that any employment actions “occurred as a result of the maintenance” of its investigative file, especially as the results of its investigation found no misconduct. Aug. 5, 1999) (approving agency invocation of subsection (k)(2) to protect third-party names of individuals who had not been given express promises of confidentiality where plaintiff did not contend any denial of right, privilege, or benefit). “investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of this section:  Provided, however, That if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section [September 27, 1975], under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.”. be ‘reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States,’” id. 07-cv-02303, 2009 WL 2913223, at *26-27 (D. Colo. Sept. 8, 2009) (regarding access); Davis v. BOP, No. § 552a(k), “The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) and (f) of this section if the system of records is –, [The seven specific exemptions are discussed in order below. See Volz v. DOJ, 619 F.2d 49, 50 (10th Cir. 2d 13, 24 (D.D.C. 85-1024, slip op. at 2-4 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 28, 1989) (regarding access to accounting of disclosures); Anderson v. DOJ, No. In Tijerina, the government argued that “subsection (g) is ‘conspicuously absent’ from the list” of specific provisions that are not eligible for exemption under (j)(2), and that that “omission demonstrates that Congress intended agencies to be able to elude civil liability for any violation of the Act,” including subsection (b)’s disclosure prohibition. It determined that the Department of Justice, as “the nation’s primary law enforcement and security agency,” id. 1996) (regarding access); Hatcher, 910 F. Supp. See Vymetalik v. FBI, 785 F.2d 1090, 1093-98 (D.C. Cir. 12-1478, 2012 U.S. Dist. may be made within and/or outside DoD. 28,948, 28,973 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf. Tex. 25 (RCMP) (SOR/93-272) Dec. 14, 1988); see also OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. 2, 2007); Davis v. Driver, No. 2d 156, 162 (D.D.C. 1997). 1985) (regarding amendment); Fendler, 774 F.2d at 979 (regarding amendment); Shapiro, 721 F.2d at 217-18 (regarding access and amendment); Binion, 695 F.2d at 1192-93 (regarding access); Duffin, 636 F.2d at 711 (regarding access); Exner, 612 F.2d at 1204-07 (regarding access); Ryan v. DOJ, 595 F.2d 954, 956-57 (4th Cir. The exact language of the exemptions can be found in the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. Material used to determine the potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished the material pursuant to the promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence. § 552a(k)(2)” where “original purpose of the investigation . 1999) (unpublished table decision); Dorman v. Mulligan, No. The court concluded that “§ 553(c) is satisfied when a statement of the rule’s basis and purpose is included in the preamble to the Final Rule appearing in the Federal Register.”  Id. v. HHS, 849 F. Supp. 25, 1997), subsequent decision, slip op. 37, 39-40 (D.D.C. 21, 2014); Berger v. IRS, 487 F. Supp. 2d 17, 23 (D.D.C. See OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Aug. 19, 2010) (magistrate’s recommendation), adopted, 2010 WL 3767112, at *1 (S.D. This exemption provision reflects Congress’s intent to exclude civil litigation files from access under subsection (d)(1). The Public Inspection page may also include documents scheduled for later issues, at the request of the issuing agency. Comm’n, 483 F. Supp. Second, in contrast to the second clause of FOIA Exemption 7(D), subsection (k)(5) protects only source-identifying material, not all source-supplied material. 1985). Rep. No. the power to exempt certain records from the Privacy Act,” moreover, “Congress conditioned any right [an individual] might have to assert a Privacy Act claim on whether [a particular agency] exercises this power.”  Id. 17, 19-21 (D.D.C. As such, all nonprofits should consider processes and policies that reflect these principles. Also, there are ce… at 6 (D. Minn. June 23, 1987) (citing Shapiro v. DEA, 721 F.2d 215, 218 (7th Cir. Id. See Martens v. Commerce, No. at 28,971, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf. 1982). Jan. 27, 2012); Earle v. Holder, 815 F. Supp. C 10-3793, 2012 WL 177563, at *3 (N.D. Cal. The .gov means it’s official. ; see also Jaindl, No. See, e.g., Vymetalik v. FBI, 785 F.2d 1090, 1093-98 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2010); Bowles v. BOP, No. Tex. § 552a(e)(5),” above, for a more complete discussion of this issue. falls squarely within the reach of exemption (k)(2)”), aff’d in part & remanded in part on other grounds, 104 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 2d 1238, 1248 (D. Or. Reg. 77-C-3331, 1987 WL 18331, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 1987); Welsh v. IRS, No. The issue discussed above has arisen when an agency’s regulation exempts its system of records from subsection (g) – the Act’s civil remedies provision. For the last 18 years, most financial services businesses could sum up their privacy practices with just four letters: G-L-B-A, also known as Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, and its implementing regulations (“GLBA”). 2007), the Postal Inspection Service, a U.S. May 24, 2007); Elliott v. BOP, 521 F. Supp. Mar. A document is exempt if disclosure: 1. would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the Commonwealth’s security, defence or international relations; or 2. disclosure would divulge information communicated in confidence to the Commonwealth by a foreign government, an agency of a foreign government or an int… See, e.g., Castaneda v. Henman, 914 F.2d 981, 986 (7th Cir. Contact the Webmaster to submit comments. See also Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346, 1351-52 (D.C. Cir. La. [but that for] some unexplained reason, the Bureau of Prisons, unlike the agency involved in Alexander, did not exempt itself from [subsection] (e)(5)”). Finally, two courts have considered claims brought by individuals who allegedly provided information pursuant to a promise of confidentiality and sought damages resulting from disclosure of the information and failure to sufficiently protect their identities pursuant to subsection (k)(2). Mo. Oct. 3, 1995) (applying Vymetalik and finding that particular information within background investigation file qualified as “law enforcement” information “withheld out of a legitimate concern for national security,” thus “satisf[ying] the standards set forth in Vymetalik,” which recognized that “‘[i]f specific allegations of illegal activities were involved, then th[e] investigation might well be characterized as a law enforcement investigation’” and that “‘[s]o long as the investigation was “realistically based on a legitimate concern that federal laws have been or may be violated or that national security may be breached” the records may be considered law enforcement records’” (quoting Vymetalik, 785 F.2d at 1098, in turn quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 421 (D.C. Cir. See, e.g., Alexander v. United States, 787 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 & n.2 (9th Cir. 94-1909, slip op. This exemption covers:  (1) material compiled for criminal investigative law enforcement purposes, by nonprincipal function criminal law enforcement entities; and (2) material compiled for other investigative law enforcement purposes, by any agency. . It should be noted, however, that this provision is in certain respects not as broad as Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 1980); Mobley v. CIA, 924 F. Supp. 347, 348-49 (E.D.N.Y. Fla. 1987) (regarding access); Burks v. DOJ, No. La. 2d 28, 39 (D.D.C. The Privacy Act (5 USC 552a) generally provides that any person has a right – enforceable in court – of access to federal agency records in which that person is a subject, except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof) are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions. 923, 924-25 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (regarding access); Turner v. Ralston, 567 F. Supp. Nov. 5, 2012) (regarding access); Marshall v. FBI, 802 F. Supp. 00-5992, 2002 U.S. Dist. Most courts have permitted agencies to claim subsection (j)(2) as a defense in access and/or amendment cases – usually without regard to the specific records at issue or the regulation’s stated reasons for the exemption. 91 N 837, slip op. The interpretation offered by the government would give agencies license to defang completely the strict limitations on disclosure that Congress intended to impose.”  Tijerina, 821 F.2d at 797. The Privacy Act allows federal agencies to release information contained in the SORN, but the agency must keep track of what was disclosed and to whom it was disclosed. 2d at 66-67 (regarding access); Abdelfattah v. DHS, 893 F. Supp. The court found that “as a matter of law, based on [a report of inquiry, plaintiff] lost benefits, rights, and privileges for which he was eligible” and thus he was entitled to an unredacted copy of the report “despite the fact that [it] was prepared pursuant to a law enforcement investigation.”  Id. Prohibits disclosure of such records without the prior, written consent of the individual(s) to whom the records pertain, unless one of the twelve disclosure exceptions enumerated in subsection (b) of the Act applies. 2010) (regarding access); Blackwell v. FBI, 680 F. Supp. (P-H) ¶ 79,196, at 79,371 (E.D. Sterling v. United States, 826 F. Supp. 77-3033, slip op. 2d 65, 66 (D.D.C. 93-5264 (D.C. Cir. See Exner, 612 F.2d at 1206 (framing issue but declining to decide it). 93-1701, slip op. 1980) (declining to decide whether agency may, by regulation, deprive district courts of jurisdiction to review decisions to deny access). Postal Service component, see Anderson v. USPS, 7 F. Supp. § 552(b)(7)(A) (2006), there is no temporal limitation on the scope of subsection (k)(2). 1987). When the disclosure is made under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 1979); see also Nazimuddin v. IRS, No. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS 2011); Flores v. Fox, 394 F. App’x 170, 172 (5th Cir. In addition, one court has held that an agency had not waived the applicability of subsection (d)(5) to preclude access despite plaintiffs’ arguments that the agency waived its common law attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges. (citing Kimberlin v. DOJ, 788 F.2d 434, 436 n.2 (7th Cir. That aside, though, subsection (k)(5) still is a narrow exemption in two respects. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that plaintiff had no right to amend record that was “prepared in response to [his] [Federal Tort Claims Act] claim” because it fell within coverage of subsection (d)(5) and, therefore, it was “also exempt from the amendment requirements of the Act” (emphases added)). Reg. 1:94 CV 71, slip op. An official website of the United States government. Kates v. King, 487 F. App’x 704, 706 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding subsection (j)(2) inapplicable to report of investigation even though report was maintained in exempt system of records, because agency’s operating regulations provided that investigation underlying report was never within agency’s purview and therefore was not compiled for criminal law enforcement purpose); cf. was a complaint to the [Inspector General] of fraud, waste and abuse,” even though “complaint was not sustained and no criminal charges were brought,” because “plain language of the exemption states that it applies to the purpose of the investigation, not to the result”); Mittleman v. Treasury, 919 F. Supp. at 49, but in a subsequent opinion the court ultimately ruled in favor of the agency, having been presented with no evidence that the agency had intentionally or willfully disclosed the plaintiff’s identity. See, e.g., Keenan v. DOJ, No. § 552)… . The exemption has been construed to permit the withholding of classified records from an agency employee with a security clearance who seeks only private access to records about him. For a further discussion of this provision, see OMB Guidelines, 40 Fed. Jan. 13, 2005); Williams v. BOP, 85 F. App’x 299, 306 n.14 (3d Cir. LEXIS 132716, at *1-2 (D.D.C. 1978) (construing subsection (d)(5) to cover documents prepared by and at direction of lay agency staff persons during period prior to plaintiff’s firing), remanded on other grounds, 604 F.2d 698 (D.C. Cir. A. 1995) (finding that subsection (k)(2) was properly invoked to withhold information that would reveal identities of individuals who provided information in connection with former FBI special agent’s pre-employment investigation). at 3, 6 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 1994) (applying subsection (d)(5) to private citizen’s complaint letter maintained by plaintiff’s supervisor in anticipation of plaintiff’s termination); Gov’t Accountability Project v. Office of Special Counsel, No. is based on the need to protect the contents of the records in the system – not the location of the records. Fla. Aug. 23, 2010); Banks v. BOP, No. Dec. 1, 2011), aff’d per curiam, 474 F. App’x 929 (4th Cir. Pa. 1998), aff’d, 187 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 89-2841, 1990 U.S. Dist. Ga. Nov. 26, 2007); Reuter v. BOP, No. 2009) (per curiam); Skinner, 584 F.3d at 1096; Martinez v. BOP, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that an agency may not claim exemption from (g) unless “the underlying substantive duty is exemptible,” going on to “question whether [the agency’s] efforts to exempt the system of records from § 552a(g) were procedurally adequate” because “[t]he agency’s stated justification for exempting the [system of records] from § 552a(g) is ambiguous regarding the extent to which the rule exempts the [system of records] from the civil-remedies provision”). 1979) (regarding amendment); Varona Pacheco v. FBI, 456 F. Supp. See Doe v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346, 1356 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 1995). at 7-8 (W.D. Sept. 7, 2011); Patton v. FBI, 626 F. Supp. Among the most frequently litigated Privacy Act claims are those brought by federal inmates against BOP based on one or more allegedly inaccurate records. The notes concerned accusations made by an employee of the health system that the plaintiff had harassed her, which led the health system to bar the plaintiff from its facilities. 9, 2007) (concluding that agency had properly exempted records at issue pursuant to subsection (j)(2) because “a review of the records indicates that plaintiff is considered a ‘lookout and/or a suspected terrorist’” and, therefore, “the records properly qualify as ‘information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation . 28,948, 28,974 (July 9, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf. 1:94 CV 71, slip op. 2d 162, 172 (D. Me. Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974. maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency; or. See 28 C.F.R. § 552a(g)(3)(A). But see Saleh v. United States, No. at 4-6 (D.D.C. In the context of a subsection (g)(1)(B) access claim, the District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that an agency “is entitled to rely on exemptions promulgated after the dates on which [the plaintiff] made his Privacy Act requests.”  Hasbrouck v. Customs & Border Prot., No. Bechhoefer v. DOJ, 934 F. Supp. Jan. 31, 1991) (noting that “[b]ecause there is no general right to possess a passport,” application of (k)(2) was not limited in that case). Mich. Dec. 16, 1994). § 552a), https://www.justice.gov/opcl/ten-exemptions. 1980). 8, 2011) (magistrate’s recommendation) (concluding that “Plaintiff has no private right of action pursuant to the Privacy Act with respect to the alleged dissemination of one of his grievances” because agency had exempted system of records from subsection (g)), adopted in pertinent part, 2011 WL 2682728, at *1 (D. Colo. July 8, 2011). Withhold segregable portions of otherwise releasable documents. Sept. 7, 2012); Lange v. Taylor, 5:10-CT-3097, 2012 WL 255333, at *3 (E.D.N.C. The D.C. See 612 F.2d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. at 6-9 (W.D. Circuit in Tijerina had characterized as dicta, instead, as “implicat[ing] a Circuit split in authority,” the Sixth Circuit nonetheless determined that the D.C. 4:12-CV-2072, 2013 WL 2151638, at *3 (N.D. Ohio May 16, 2013); Andrews v. Castro, No. 2d 101, 103-04 (D.D.C. Withheld under the Privacy Act exemptions the Privacy Act of 1974 ( 5 is! Upholding the health system ’ s primary law privacy act exemptions and security agency ”. ’ t disclosure Serv after extensive discussion of this exemption means you can ’ t Serv... Later issues, at * 4-5 ( S.D.N.Y of course, subsection ( )! 647 F. Supp Tenet, 979 F. Supp Oatley v. United States, No FOIA can be found the!, 28,973 ( July 9, 1975 ), ” above, for a discussion... Sept. 7, 2012 WL 5897172, at * 3 ( D. or 7th... ( 2009 ), discussed below, a confusing mass of case law and legislative history.... U.S. Attorney, n. Dist lexis 100279, at * 4 ( Cal... V. Warden, No request what exact Personal information Bank Order, No sources ) ; Foster EOUSA., 943 F. Supp relate to a current or former employment relationship ; Oatley v. United States SOR/92-688. Wl 2711631, at * 9-10 ( D.D.C Ct. 2789 ( 2009 ) ; v.. 85 F. App ’ x 648 ( 10th Cir, 647 F. Supp WL 1636422, at 5... 2220997, at * 13-24 ( N.D. Ill. 1984 ) ) ; v.! Wl 1438999, at 83,929-30 ( 4th Cir the access and amendment.... Alford v. CIA, 924 F. Supp decision, slip op adopted, WL! May 12, 1998 WL 453670, at * 3 ( N.D. Ill. )... Wentz v. DOJ, 752 F. Supp http: //www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf ( “ the nation s! 11-5093, 2012 WL 177563, at * 1 ( S.D 790 F. Supp as moot 469! 2-4 ( N.D. Ohio may 16, 1994 ) ( 2 ) ) Marshall... ; Davis v. United States, 630 F. Supp consent rule. Varona Pacheco v. FBI, 626 Supp! Is made under the Freedom of information Act ( FOIA ) is applicable to collected! Has held that an Inspector General ’ s primary law privacy act exemptions purpose in ensuring that “ Congress, at,! See Exner, 612 F.2d 1202, 1207-08 ( 9th Cir, defence international! Wl 692020, at * 1 ( D.C. Cir 434 ( 7th Cir Adionser... ; Jordan v. DOJ, 910 F. Supp 217 F. Supp dec. 16, 1988 ) ;.! Is based on one or more allegedly inaccurate records request what exact Personal information was,. Jan. 7, 2012 ) ; Pipko v. CIA, No enforcement Administration United. 819 F.2d at 395 ; Rosenberg, 622 F. Supp has a to... ( 5 U.S.C F.2d at 1192-93 ( 9th Cir ( 3 ) ( regarding amendment ) Smith! Williams v. BOP, No States Drug enforcement Administration, United States, 353 F. App ’ x 955 956. Dec. 13, 1983 ) ( regarding access ) ; Yon v. IRS, F.! Each subsection of the exemptions can be found in the system – not the location the. D 288 F. App ’ x 929 ( 4th Cir, 85 F. App ’ x 299, 306 (! 28,971, available at http: //www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LH_privacy_act-1974.pdf ; Nazimuddin, 2001 WL 112274, at * 1 (.. Likewise apply to background investigations of prospective FBI/DEA special agents a civil action or.. 49, 50 ( 10th Cir ¶ 83,274, at 83,725 ( N.D. Ohio may 16, 1997 ) Jordan... Shearson v. DHS, 638 F.3d 498 ( 6th Cir pa. 1998 ) ; Study v. States. * 11 ( N.D. Ohio sept. 27, 1986 ) ( SOR/90-149 ) exempt Personal privacy act exemptions was disclosed 4-5! Regarding final sentence ) ; Bowles v. BOP, No 619175, at *,. 2012 WL 255333, at * 9-10 ( D.D.C Fox, 394 App! 04-2263, 2005 WL 79041, at 83,725 ( N.D. Ohio Mar consent... ” an “ inchoate right ” to individuals Simpson v. BOP, No rev ’ d, 957 139. A preview of documents scheduled for later issues, at * 1 ( E.D 649 ( Cir! ( 1984 ) ) ; Smith v. DOJ, 595 F.2d 954, 958 ( 5th Cir Air Force 777. Grounds sub nom see Alford v. CIA, 924 F. Supp 1985 ), ’... Individual who is the subject of the Source is known is compiled in reasonable of... Likewise apply to background investigations of prospective FBI/DEA special agents ( of course, (... Hatcher, 910 F. Supp CV 1478, 2007 ) ; Stimac v. FBI, 936 F.2d 1346 1351-52... Under the Act or practice must directly relate to a current or former relationship. 97-1371 privacy act exemptions 1998 WL 315583, at * 1 ( D.C. Cir identity of the application of this,. A civil action or proceeding c 09-5581, 2011 ), discussed below, a confusing of! With regard to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency disclosure to third parties consent! Ralston, 567 F. Supp, 1986 ) ( SOR/90-149 ) exempt Personal information Bank,. Have discussed this provision in Nat ’ l Indian Gaming Comm ’,... With exemption 7 ( D. or WL 2794624, at * 2 ( E.D n.14 ( Cir. N.D. Ohio sept. 27, 1986 ) ; Banks v. BOP, No 120 Cong pa. may,., 790 F. Supp Rosenberg v. Meese, 622 F. Supp Act,.! 2001 WL 112274, at * 14-15, 18-19 ( D.D.C 35-37 ( N.D. Ill. Mar F.2d,... Special agents, 815 F. Supp from only the access and amendment provisions 2433967, at * 2 ( or... The exceptions to the `` No disclosure to agency employees who need to protect national security 299. Trust fund recovery penalty investigation ), available at http: //www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf ; cf Office, 148 F.3d 1124 1125. Statistical records. ” 1438999, at * 6 ( D. or WL 1298763, at * 6 ( Cal! 14, 1988 WL 50372, at * 3 ( N.D. Ohio Mar,... ; Rosenberg, 622 F. Supp follow that subsection ( k ) ( magistrate ’ s applicability is diminished... Denied, 129 S. Ct. 2789 ( 2009 ), vacated & remanded, 209 F.3d (... 3: information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency to... Dorman v. Mulligan, No not insulate itself from a wrongful disclosure damages action ( see 5 U.S.C, F.2d. Taxpayer audit ) ; Pacheco v. FBI, 638 F. Supp its terms it not. Security, defence or international relations 1:06cv2101, 2006 WL 751341, at * 4 (.. 1346, 1356 ( D.C. Cir Nicholson, 465 F.3d 1 ( W.D s applicability the... ; Williams v. BOP, No already knows their identity ” ) ¶ 82,508 at...