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: 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.

t*787] PER CURIAM: In April 1991, Vance Gilbreath's employer, the

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
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