Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02523/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02523-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2523

___________

Georgia Artz; Lisa Belgarde; *

Emily Davis; and Sonia Zerr, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2008

Filed: May 2, 2008

___________

Before RILEY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in this matter, Georgia Artz, Lisa Belgarde, Emily Davis, and

Sonia Zerr, are all employees of the Quentin N. Burdick Memorial Health Care

Facility (“the Facility”) which is operated by Indian Heath Services (“IHS”). They

Appellate Case: 07-2523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2008 Entry ID: 3429662
1

The Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District

of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the

parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

seek reversal of the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment on their Privacy Act

claim. We affirm.

As part of an earlier Privacy Act investigation, the IHS officer in charge of

Privacy Act matters prepared an investigative report, concluding that the appellants

had violated the Privacy Act rights of certain co-workers. Those co-workers initiated

a lawsuit, and the investigative report was released during discovery in that case.

Subsequently, the appellants initiated this action, contending that their own Privacy

Act rights had been violated when the investigative report was released in the prior

lawsuit. 

We agree, however, with the district court that the investigative report, which

was filed chronologically by the Facility and was not subject to being retrieved based

on any personally identifiable information, such as name or social security number,

was not retrieved from a “system of records” as contemplated by the Privacy Act. See

5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a

system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another

agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of,

the individual to whom the record pertains . . . .”); see also § 552a(a)(5) (“‘[S]ystem

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 . . . .”); Doe v. Dep’t

of Veterans Affairs, 519 F.3d 456, 463 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Congress limited the type of

disclosure that would lead to liability by proscribing only the disclosure of a record

‘contained in a system of records,’ not the disclosure of all records or information.”

Appellate Case: 07-2523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2008 Entry ID: 3429662
-3-

(quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b))). Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary

judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2523 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/02/2008 Entry ID: 3429662