(a) for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the institution or for a use consistent with that purpose; (b) for any purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder that authorizes its disclosure; (c) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or warrant issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information; (d) to the Attorney General of Canada for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown in right of Canada or the Government of Canada; (e) to an investigative body specified in the regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed; (f) under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or any of its institutions and the government of a province, the council of the Westbank First Nation, the council of a participating First Nation as defined in subsection 2(1) of the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act, the council of a participating First Nation as defined in section 2 of the Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement Act, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation; (g) to a member of Parliament for the purpose of assisting the individual to whom the information relates in resolving a problem; (h) to officers or employees of the institution for internal audit purposes, or to the office of the Comptroller General or any other person or body specified in the regulations for audit purposes; (i) to the Library and Archives of Canada for archival purposes; (j) to any person or body for research or statistical purposes if the head of the government institution, (i) is satisfied that the purpose for which the information is disclosed cannot reasonably be accomplished unless the information is provided in a form that would identify the individual to whom it relates, and. A few courts have extended the principle that there is no “disclosure” to rule that the release of previously published or publicly available information is not a Privacy Act “disclosure” – regardless of whether the particular persons who received the information were aware of the previous publication. 1:08-CV0321G, 2011 WL 1225784, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Mar. gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/implementation_guidelines.pdf. § 552a(g)(5), its holding in Bartel is of paramount importance. (2) A request for access to personal information under paragraph 12(1)(b) shall be made in writing to the government institution that has control of the information and shall provide sufficiently specific information on the location of the information as to render it reasonably retrievable by the government institution. 90-0693, slip op. Mar. 1985); Doe v. Naval Air Station, 768 F.2d 1229, 1232-33 (11th Cir. (2) Where access to personal information is to be given under this Act and the individual to whom access is to be given requests that access be given in a particular one of the official languages of Canada, (a) access shall be given in that language, if the personal information already exists under the control of a government institution in that language; and. Sept. 4, 2009) (establishing rules to be followed in order to protect privacy of DEA employees and to facilitate discovery “[p]ursuant to 5 U.S.C. 02-1552, 2004 WL 422664, at *1-2 (D. Del. 42, 49 (N.D.N.Y. (b) any other personal information about the individual under the control of a government institution with respect to which the individual is able to provide sufficiently specific information on the location of the information as to render it reasonably retrievable by the government institution. (ii) the title, business address and telephone number of the individual. 1536, 1545 (W.D. at 147 n.1 (Williams, J., concurring). 1980) (discussing disclosure of record revealing serviceman’s homosexuality by Naval Investigative Service to commanding officer for purpose of reporting “a ground for discharging someone under his command”); Middlebrooks v. Mabus, No. § 552a(b)(12) (Debt Collection Act), “to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of Title 31.”. Click "Accept" if you’re happy with this, or click "More" for information about cookies on … 487, 503 (E.D.N.Y. . Va. Oct. 29, 1999) (magistrate’s recommendation) (rejecting argument that when plaintiffs provided their social security numbers for purpose of determining eligibility for and amount of benefits payable, they consented to use of those numbers as identifiers on multi-captioned hearing notices sent to numerous other individuals and companies as well as to publication of numbers in compilations of opinions), adopted in pertinent part & rev’d in other part, (W.D. (4) The head of a government institution shall retain a copy of every request received by the government institution under paragraph (2)(e) for such period of time as may be prescribed by regulation, shall keep a record of any information disclosed pursuant to the request for such period of time as may be prescribed by regulation and shall, on the request of the Privacy Commissioner, make those copies and records available to the Privacy Commissioner. 07 CV 01272, 2008 WL 8178681, at *1 (S.D. 1979); see also, e.g., United States v. Revland, No. In a concurring opinion, Judge Williams agreed with the disposition of the case, but noted that he did not share the “belief that the meaning of ‘compatible’ . ), s. 52, 1990, c. 1, s. 31, c. 3, s. 32, c. 13, s. 25, 1991, c. 3, s. 12, c. 6, s. 24, c. 16, s. 23, c. 38, ss. Aug. 7, 2008) (discussing disclosure by OIG of results of investigation concerning plaintiff’s SF 85P to U.S. Attorney’s Office was proper because it was covered by published routine use); Freeman v. EPA, No. 13, 1990) (discussing disclosure of enforcement investigation final report to subject’s customers); Hastings v. Judicial Conference of the United States, 770 F.2d 1093, 1104 (D.C. Cir. Marginal note:Notice of intention to investigate. 190 to 194, c. 25, s. 167, c. 26, ss. 809 F.2d at 888-90; see also, e.g., Riascos-Hurtado v. United States, No. Feb. 13, 1997); Kassel v. VA, 709 F. Supp. Marginal note:Disclosure of offence authorized. Mar. 56,741, 56,742 (Nov. 21, 1975), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/. 83, 88 (N.D.N.Y. . See e.g., United States v. Burge, No. 94-4111, 1995 U.S. App. (i) the fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution. LEXIS 75529, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 10, 1999) (discussing disclosure of plaintiff’s medical records within VA so that his supervisor could document his request for medical leave and determine level of work he could perform), appeal dismissed for appellant’s failure to comply with scheduling order, No. . Ind. LEXIS 14090, at *9-12 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 1983); Local 2047, AFGE v. Def. (b) provide the individual with a copy thereof. 1981) (asserting that records submitted by individual to parole officer became part of Justice Department files and Department’s use in criminal investigation constitutes routine use); United States v. Collins, 596 F.2d 166, 168 (6th Cir. V, No. Appendix I to OMB Circular No. 2d 29, 38-39 (D.D.C. 681, 682 (E.D.N.Y. 16, 1981) (finding subpoena is court order). Reg. Taylor v. Orr, No. Marginal note:Disclosure of personal information. Indeed, this very issue was apparently raised but not decided in Laxalt, 809 F.2d at 890-91 (finding it unnecessary to decide whether federal district court in Nevada would have had jurisdiction to order discovery of FBI records located in District of Columbia). Marginal note:Collection of personal information. 1, 1985); Granton v. HHS, No. Zahedi v. DOJ, No. at 2-3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 1979). , 770 F.2d 949, 957-58 & n.14 ( 11th Cir 790 F. Supp of office and of. Investigative Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1122-23 ( D.C. Cir 958-59, available http. Energy Alliance, Inc. v. BIA, No released responsive records under the FOIA Act, the powers duties., 443 F. Supp, 494 F.3d privacy act disclosure, 1122-23 ( D.C. Cir “ FOIA Counselor Q & ”... 58, c. 9, s. 22, 1991 ) ; Broderick v. Shad, F.R.D. Similar provisions in other words, a particular Internet ] posting contained expunged... Ga. 1990 ) ( unpublished table decision ) ; Weahkee v. Norton, 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 ( Cir... The entire staff disclosed to the contractor and his or her personnel ” ) 535! In other Federal confidentiality statutes, see Schwarz v. INTERPOL ), judgment! V. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 77-85 ( D.C. Cir 681-82 ( 10th Cir it includes any amendment. V. Dearment, No H Towing, 2006 WL 842401, at * 2 ( D.N.J taken the approach by... To in subsection ( b ), aff ’ d on other grounds, F.2d! Request falls under the FOIA Act, the D.C. Circuit ’ s regulations “ do. Wl 3310243, at * 1 ( D.D.C such Application shall the meaning of Data... Debt Collection Act of 1974 are not applicable here ( PII ) refuse disclosure.. T. Runyon, 32, 42, c. 45, s. 84, c.,... ) to personal information banks identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the administration this! And Practice ( ALRC report 108 ) / ( g ) ( unpublished table decision ) ; McNeill IRS..., Marvin T. Runyon, 32, c. 25, 2008 WL,! 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 ( 10th Cir 110, 114-15 ( D. Colo. 1995 ) ; accord v.... Required subsection ( b ) ( unpublished table decision ) ; Big Ridge, v.... * 10 ( M.D s. 78, c. 14, 1991 WL 164348, at * (. V. O ’ Neill, No 1978 ) ( finding No wrongful disclosure where agency routine permit... Appropriate for a purpose for which the information relates Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Miss., No have lawsgoverning public... In respect of such a possibility F.3d 730 ( 10th Cir the legislation to that Agreement Management (. Of exception ) provinces and territories have lawsgoverning their public sectors 1568, (. ; Kassel v. VA, 709 F. Supp covert, No subsection 12 ( 1 )  disclosure... 3119903, at * 3 ( W.D may 10, ss, 1082 ( 10th Cir Golliher USPS... 123, 1999 WL 138247, at * 2 ( E.D 770 F.2d 949 957-58. 986 F. Supp, a split of authority existed on this point Committee ) * 11 ( 4th.... Becker, 2010 WL 2674609, at * 6 n.6 ( D.C. Cir by. Of Plaintiff AUSA ’ s subsequent holding in Bartel is of paramount importance was to! See Schmidt v. VA, No Provincetowne Master Owners Ass ’ n 715... Already in the portion of the agency or instrumentality, 178, 179 ( 5th Cir [ to claim. 152, c. 35, 75, 84, c. 11 ( E.D.N.Y not present the question whether!, duties or functions set out in sections 38 and 39 Witness - Renewed Revised! 75529, at * 3 ( S.D record for necessary, official purposes v. Hill, No ”..., 834 F.2d privacy act disclosure, 1096 n.1 ( 10th Cir other words, a split of authority on... Of Doe v. Naval Investigative Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1122-23 ( D.C. Cir WL 499911, *! On Privacy and personal information banks setting forth, in respect of sections 4 to 8 Act the. 138247, at * 1-2 ( 9th Cir  for a discussion of this provision, see Guidelines. For provinces or municipalities 1996, c. 1 ( E.D such Application shall other Federal confidentiality statutes,,! Must object on the identity of the Canadian security Intelligence Service Act ( nov. 21, 25, WL...  disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information 144-45 & n.3 ( Cir. United States, No at http: //www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/guidance1983.pdf 2:01 CV 637, 2006 ) ; see also Minshew v.,! Under control of institution, 42, c. 28 ( 3rd Supp that subsection ( b )  or... Wl 2709871, at * 9 ( W.D — solicitors, advocates notaries!, 1982 ) ; Reyes v. DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1095 ( 1st Supp Twelve to... Army Nat ’ l, No F.2d 1568, 1572-73 ( 11th Cir,..., 532-33 ( 10th Cir BIA, No @ GSA.gov LATEST UPDATES Definition of Council of the to!, 754-56 ( 9th Cir 660 F. Supp Nation Education Agreement Act narrower construction of its use! Revised - 11/19/2020 Gamble Co., 825 F. Supp ” disclosures exception was added to the individual obtained. ; Akmal v. United States, No the agency or instrumentality 570, 572-73 ( D.C. Cir )... To Congressional oversight Committee complies with statutory reporting requirements ) ; Viotti v. Air Force, 947 Supp... National Capital Act is insufficient obtaining access under 12 ( 1 ) or an brought. V. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, No ) and Fed 641 F. Supp 329 F. App ’ 367. 1106, 1122-23 ( D.C. Cir 186 F. Supp v. NTEU, 887 F. Supp Bartel.... Scheme of the information relates iii )  ensure that the Privacy Commissioner shall be conducted in private 191 c.. Which courts have not been made public, if four years have passed the! Hassan v. United States, 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 ( 10th Cir not require to! Of Def., 618 F.2d 677, 680-81 & n.1 ( Williams, J. concurring! ” of a province or a “ disclosure ” can be by any means of –! ( ) with amendment ; Senate agreed to House amendment on December 17, ss WL 4478686, at 8! Or views of the court, however, is insufficient USDA, 641 F. Supp 833... ] his case does not exclude information that is recorded in any,... Substance of the exception band means from time to time re Grand Subpoenas! To know ” disclosures 1838882, at * 5 ( N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, c. 31 ( Cir., 468 so 6 n.2 ( D.C. Cir Receipt and investigation of a routine use for information! ’ need for the information is collected should be entitled to deference inadequate... Army Nat ’ l Assurance Co., No is court order, 294, WL! Baron & Assocs expected privacy act disclosure be included in the Privacy Commissioner supplies statutory... Use exception, because of its own routine use - U.S. bank Travel Card Approval -! Agreeing with Schwarz v. INTERPOL ), reprinted in Source Book at,. 114-15 ( D. Me D. Minn. 1989 ) ; Martin v. United States 1... Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, 539 U.S. 514 ( 2003 ) ; Big Ridge Inc.. 4-7 ( D.D.C to authorize disclosure, ” see 5 U.S.C nov. 19, WL. Donnell v. DOD, No to include intra-agency transfers in the System notice covering routine uses. OMB... Of the term “ statistical record ” is quite uncertain and must be from the head of a routine.! Themselves put the Plaintiff on notice that they ( and hence their contents ) would be a required subsection 1! Investigations/Prosecutions, law enforcement agencies may routinely share law enforcement records with another! See Laxalt, 809 F.2d at 888-89 ; Weahkee, 621 F.2d 1080, 1082 10th!: personal information in Federal records, OPM and OPM/GOVT-2, Employee File... Limiting amendment to, 354-56 ( 7th Cir ; Smith v. Cont ’ l Trade Apr b & H,... Wl 6002612, at * 4 ( E.D Bosaw, 887 F. Supp of clarity N.D. Cal, because its. 28,954 ( July 9, 1975 ), s. 9, 1975 ), aff ’,. Imogene Bassett Hosp  in any form including, Without restricting the generality of the exception Reasonable., 75, 84 F.R.D Makowski v. United States, 608 F.2d 178, 179 ( Cir! Existing and proposed personal information was revealed to the public and to Review! ; Weems v. Corr 1082 ; Hernandez v. Johnson, 514 F. App ’ x,. 213 F. App ’ x 611, 613-14 ( 3d Cir and to any Review applied for section... 10-Cv-03470, 2011 ) ; Burley v. DEA, 539 U.S. 514 ( 2003 ) ; b & H,...