EDWARD T. HANLEY AND JOHN T. GIBSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the records were not maintained within a 'system of records' as defined by the Privacy Act, and thus were not protected by it. Injunctive relief was also precluded by statute.
Plaintiffs, a class of union officers, sued federal agencies alleging Privacy Act violations due to the transfer and subpoena of certain records. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Camera Inspection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs (a class of union officers and officials) are appealing the grant of summary judgment by the district court. The Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against the Defendants, (the United States, United States Department of Justice, the United States Department of Labor, and three United States Attorneys) for violations of the Federal Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et seq. This violation involved the transfer of certain records from the Department of Labor to the Justice Department and a subsequent subpoena of these records by a grand jury. This complaint was filed on May 27, 1977. On June 24, 1977, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Judge Porter granted the Plaintiffs an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss in order to pursue discovery. Subsequently, the Defendants filed a motion for a protective order arguing that depositions by attorneys would impinge on pending criminal prosecutions.
Judge Porter after an in camera inspection of a representative sample of these records found that they were not kept within a ‘system of records’ within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5). This meant that the records were not protected by the Privacy Act. We agree. Plaintiffs argue that the court erred in not granting discovery so that they could prove the documents are protected by the Privacy Act, and that the Court denied them their rights through its in camera investigation of these records. We find these arguments to be without merit.
We have considered all of the other arguments presented by the Plaintiffs and we find them without merit. In addition, the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs is precluded under the Privacy Act by the failure of Congress to provide for such relief. Cell Associates v. National Institutes of Health, 579 F. 2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1978).
The district court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clarkson v. Internal Revenue Serv. & John Henderson, 678 F.2d 1368 (11th Cir. 1982)
-
The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings v. Judicial Conference of the United States, 770 F.2d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
-
Wren v. Harris, 675 F.2d 1144 (10th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cell Assocs., Inc. v. Nat'l Insts. OF Health, 579 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1978)