T1A B45 Privacy Act Research FDR - Entire Contents - Code - Court Doc - 2 Legal Treatises - 1st Pgs For Ref
T1A B45 Privacy Act Research FDR - Entire Contents - Code - Court Doc - 2 Legal Treatises - 1st Pgs For Ref
T1A B45 Privacy Act Research FDR - Entire Contents - Code - Court Doc - 2 Legal Treatises - 1st Pgs For Ref
WB&_md5=4b2edd8720e80217c492601ae6ac8c:
5 USCS § 552a
I o f 80 6/3/03 10:26 AM
1 of 6 DOCUMENTS
SECOND CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THElSECX
PRIOR HISTORY:
Plaintiff-appellant Michael G. Devine appeals from
[**1] Appeal from a judgment of the United States
a judgment of the United States District Court for the
District Court for the District of Vermont (J. Garvan
District of Vermont (J. Garvan Murtha, Chief Judge),
Murtha, Chief Judge), granting summary judgment to the
granting summary judgment dismissing Devine's claims
defendant and dismissing the plaintiffs claims under the
under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1994 &
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. We hold that the
Supp. [**2] 1999) ("Privacy Act"). Devine contends
District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs claim
that the District Court erred in holding, as a matter of
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9) as the challenged
law, that the release of a letter written by the Inspector
release of data to Congress was a permitted disclosure.
General of the United States Department of Justice
("IG") to a Congressional subcommittee was a permitted
DISPOSITION:
disclosure to Congress pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
Affirmed.
552a(b)(9). We disagree and, for the reasons that follow,
affirm.
COUNSEL: BACKGROUND
JACK LONG, Clark & Long, Burlington, VT, for
In July 1995, the Office of the Inspector General
Plaintiff-Appellant.
("OIG") initiated an investigation into allegations that
CAROL L. SHEA, Assistant United States Attorney for Immigration and Naturalization Service officials,
the District of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont (Charles including Devine, had created a false picture of working
R. Tetzlaff, United States Attorney, Helen M. Toor, conditions during a fact-finding visit by members of the
Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform to
Defendant-Appellee. Miami on June 10, 1995. These allegations were
contained in a complaint signed by nearly fifty INS
JUDGES: employees. The complaint was delivered to
Before: JACOBS, CALABRESI, and STRAUB, Circuit Congressman Elton Gallegly, former chairman of the
Judges. Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform and a
member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
OPINIONBY: Claims of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of
STRAUB Representatives ("Subcommittee"), who in turn asked the
Department of Justice to investigate the matter. The
OPINION: Attorney [**3] General requested that the OIG conduct
an investigation and prepare a report with its findings. At
[*548] STRAUB, Circuit Judge: 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
No. 86-5450
258 U.S. App. D.C. 44; 809 F.2d 885; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1144; 6 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 1229
PRIOR HISTORY:
[**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Misc. No.
86-00140.
CASE SUMMARY
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,
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: filed a separate action in the district court to enforce the
[**1] As Corrected. subpoenas. After all parties in the removed case
consented to trial before a magistrate judge, Gilbreath
PRIOR HISTORY: moved for remand and for summary judgment. The
Appeals from the United States District Court for the magistrate denied both motions and entered a judgment
Western District of Texas. D.C. DOCKET NUMBER vacating the injunction and ordering the hospitals to
SA-92-CA-31. Mag. Robert B. OXTonnor. D.C. comply with the subpoenas. In the enforcement action,
DOCKET NUMBER SA-92-CV-52. JUDGE H. F. the district court also entered a judgment ordering
Garcia hospital officials to comply with the subpoenas. [**2]
In this consolidated appeal, Gilbreath challenges both
Previously Reported as Unpublished Opinion in Table judgments. Finding no error on the part of the magistrate
Case format at: 7993 U.S. App. LEXIS 23685. judge or the district court, we affirm.
I.
JUDGES: On December 30, 1990, Katherine Gilbreath and her
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, son, Van, were treated for gunshot wounds at Baptist
Circuit Judges. Memorial Hospital and Guadalupe Valley Hospital (the
Hospitals). Local newspapers reported that Gilbreath's
OPINIONBY: husband, Vance, had shot his wife and son during a
PER CURIAM domestic disturbance. Vance Glibreath was arrested and
subsequently indicted on two counts of attempted
OPINION: murder. The charges ultimately were dismissed.