PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD F. MARACICH, individually 

and on behalf of all others

similarly situated; MARTHA L.

WEEKS, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated;

JOHN C. TANNER, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,  No. 10-2021

v.

MICHAEL EUGENE SPEARS; MICHAEL

SPEARS, PA; GEDNEY MAIN HOWE,

III; GEDNEY MAIN HOWE, III, PA;

RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN; RICHARD

A. HARPOOTLIAN, PA; A. CAMDEN

LEWIS; LEWIS & BABOCK, LLP,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(7:09-cv-01651-HMH)

Argued: December 8, 2011

Decided: April 4, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Davis wrote the opinion, in which Judge Duncan and Judge Wynn joined.

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Philip N. Elbert, NEAL & HARWELL, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr.,

BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON & HELMS, LLC,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:

James G. Thomas, W. David Bridgers, Elizabeth S. Tipping,

NEAL & HARWELL, Nashville, Tennessee; Gary L. Compton, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellants. E. Bart

Daniel, Charleston, South Carolina, John B. White, Jr., HARRISON, WHITE, SMITH & COGGINS, P.C., Spartanburg,

South Carolina, for Appellees; Curtis W. Dowling, BARNES,

ALFORD, STORK & JOHNSON, LLP, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees Michael Eugene Spears and Michael

Spears, PA; Craig E. Burgess, John W. Fletcher, BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON & HELMS, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees Gedney Main Howe, III,

and Gedney Main Howe, III, PA; Charles E. Hill, TURNER

PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees Richard Harpootlian and Richard A. Harpootlian, PA.

OPINION

DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

This appeal arises from the dismissal of all claims alleged

in a putative class action complaint filed pursuant to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA or the Act), 18

U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725, which "regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor

vehicle departments." See generally Reno v. Condon, 528

2 MARACICH v. SPEARS
U.S. 141, 148 (2000) (holding the DPPA constitutional as a

proper exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce

Clause).

Appellees Michael E. Spears, Esq., Gedney M. Howe, III,

Esq., Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq., and A. Camden Lewis,

Esq., ("the Lawyers" or Appellees) are South Carolina attorneys who in 2006 and 2007 instituted several "group action"

lawsuits in South Carolina state court against numerous car

dealerships pursuant to the South Carolina Regulation of

Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act ("Dealers Act"),

S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-10 et seq. They alleged that certain

dealerships had collected unlawful fees from car buyers.

Through requests submitted to the South Carolina Department

of Motor Vehicles (DMV) under the state Freedom of Information Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 30-4-10 to -165 (FOIA), the

Lawyers obtained "personal information" protected by the

DPPA, viz., the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and car

purchase information of thousands of car buyers, from which

they identified potential named plaintiffs in the Dealers Act

group action. 

Appellants Edward F. Maracich, Martha L. Weeks, and

John C. Tanner ("the Buyers" or Appellants) are car buyers

who received mailings from the Lawyers regarding the Dealers Act litigation. In 2009, individually and on behalf of a

putative class of all others similarly situated, the Buyers sued

the Lawyers in this action in the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina alleging that the Lawyers

violated the DPPA when they obtained and used the Buyers’

personal information without their consent in connection with

the Dealers Act litigation. 

On cross-motions for summary judgment in the district

court, the Buyers argued that the liability of the Lawyers was

established as a matter of law because the Lawyers had

obtained their personal information for use in a mass solicitation which, without the Buyers’ consent, is prohibited by the

MARACICH v. SPEARS 3
DPPA. The Lawyers argued, to the contrary, that they

obtained and used the Buyers’ personal information for purposes that are permitted notwithstanding the absence of consent, most particularly, under the "litigation exception" to the

DPPA’s general prohibitions on the use of personal information. In a thorough opinion, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Lawyers, concluding that the

Lawyers did not engage in prohibited solicitation but that,

even if they did, their actions nonetheless satisfied the socalled "litigation" and "state action" exceptions to the statutory prohibitions under the DPPA, and therefore their actions

comported with the requirements of the Act. The Buyers have

timely appealed from the adverse judgment.

Having carefully considered the record and the parties’

contentions, in light of the plain language, purpose, and overall structure of the DPPA, we affirm the judgment, albeit on

reasoning differing somewhat from that of the district court.

Specifically, we hold that the district court erred in ruling that

the Lawyers did not engage in solicitation. Yet, the Lawyers

indisputably made permissible use of the Buyers’ personal

information protected by the DPPA, here, for use "in connection with [litigation]," including "investigation in anticipation

of litigation." 18 U.S.C. §2721(b)(4). Ultimately, the Buyers’

damages claims asserted under the DPPA fail as a matter of

law, notwithstanding the fact that the Buyers can identify a

distinct prohibited use (mass solicitation without consent) that

might be supported by evidence in the record. In short, where,

as a matter of settled state law and practice, as here, solicitation is an accepted and expected element of, and is inextricably intertwined with, conduct satisfying the litigation

exception under the DPPA, such solicitation is not actionable

by persons to whom the personal information pertains. 

I.

The issues presented arise out of the process and circumstances surrounding the Lawyers’ efforts to investigate, and in

4 MARACICH v. SPEARS
due course to institute, claims cognizable in the Dealers Act

litigation they filed in state court. Accordingly, we first set

forth in some detail the facts and procedural history relevant

to the state court litigation. We then proceed to describe the

facts and procedural history of this action filed in federal district court. As the parties indicated in their cross-motions for

summary judgment filed in the district court, the essential cardinal facts are undisputed.

A.

In early June 2006 the Lawyers were contacted by several

persons who complained that local car dealerships were

engaged in unfair practices. The pursuit of these potential

claims led the Lawyers to make the first of a series of FOIA

requests to the South Carolina DMV. The requests indicated

to the DMV that information was being sought "in anticipation of litigation," under the DPPA provision commonly

referred to as the "litigation exception," which authorizes a

state DMV to disclose drivers’ and/or car owners’ "personal

information":1

for use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State,

or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory

body, including the service of process, investigation

in anticipation of litigation, and the execution or

enforcement of judgments and orders, or pursuant to

an order of a Federal, State, or local court.

1Under the Act, "personal information" is defined as: 

information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver identification

number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone

number, and medical or disability information, but does not

include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations,

and driver’s status. 

18 U.S.C. § 2725(3). 

MARACICH v. SPEARS 5
18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(4). 

In the original FOIA request, Appellee Harpootlian

explained to the DMV: "I have plaintiffs who have complained of certain conduct as a result of their transactions with

car dealers, conduct which I believe to be a potential violation

[of] state law. I am attempting to determine if this is a common practice, and am accordingly submitting this FOIA

request." J.A. 206. The request was for information on "private purchases of new or used automobiles in Spartanburg

County during the week of May 1-7, 2006, including the

name, address, and telephone number of the buyer, dealership

where purchased, type of vehicle purchased, and date of purchase." J.A. 206. Apparently satisfied that the litigation

exception applied, the DMV provided the requested information. 

About one month later, Harpootlian made a second FOIA

request to the DMV. This request likewise invoked the litigation exception of the DPPA and extended the inquiry to purchases of new or used cars in Charleston, Richland, York,

Lexington, and Greenville counties for the week of May 1-7,

2006. Again, the DMV provided the requested information. 

It is undisputed that at the time of these first two FOIA

requests (despite Harpootlian’s reference to "plaintiffs who

have complained of certain conduct") the Lawyers had not yet

filed an action under the Dealers Act or otherwise. Just days

after the second FOIA request, however (and presumably

before it was answered), the Lawyers filed in state court a

Dealers Act case referred to by the parties and the district

court as the Herron litigation, alleging violations by 51 car

dealerships.2 The suit was filed on behalf of four named plain2The Dealers Act prohibits automobile dealerships from engaging in

"any action which is arbitrary, in bad faith, or unconscionable and which

causes damage to any of the parties or the public." S.C. Code Ann. § 56-

15-40. The specific allegation in Herron was that dealerships deceptively

6 MARACICH v. SPEARS
tiffs and "for the benefit of all others," J.A. 220; see S.C.

Code Ann. § 56-15-110 (providing that "when such action is

one of common or general interest to many persons or when

the parties are numerous and it is impracticable to bring them

all before the court, one or more may sue for the benefit of

the whole, including actions for injunctive relief."). 

Immediately following the filing of the complaint in Herron, various defendant dealerships filed motions to dismiss on

the ground that they had not sold cars to any of the four

named plaintiffs, who therefore lacked standing. With these

motions pending, Harpootlian submitted a third FOIA request

to the DMV in October 2006, again citing the litigation

exception, in which he requested the personal information and

types of vehicles purchased for people who bought cars from

328 listed dealerships between May 1 and May 14, 2006.

Included on the list were those dealerships that had filed

motions to dismiss for lack of standing in the Herron litigation. Again, the DMV complied with the request.

On October 31, 2006, the Lawyers filed an amended complaint in the Herron litigation, which added four named plaintiffs to the suit and increased the number of defendant

dealerships from 51 to 324. As with the original complaint,

defendant dealerships that had not engaged in transactions

with any of the now eight named plaintiffs filed motions to

dismiss for lack of standing. In all, more than 183 motions to

dismiss were filed. 

On January 3, 2007, the Lawyers mailed the first of another

series of letters to the car buyers identified through the FOIA

grouped "administrative fees" on invoices with taxes and other required

fees to mislead purchasers into believing that the charges were mandatory

and non-negotiable. The suit requested permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of all fees to all purchasers who paid them, double actual damages,

litigation costs and attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. 

MARACICH v. SPEARS 7
requests. The first letter was prefaced, just below the letterhead, with the phrase: ADVERTISING MATERIAL. J.A.

487. The letter stated, in its entirety:

We represent a group of consumers in a pending

lawsuit arising from South Carolina car dealerships

charging an add-on, often referred to as an "administrative fee," a "recording and processing fee," "closing fee," or "dealer documentation and closing fee."

We believe that these fees are being charged in violation of South Carolina law. 

We understand that you may have been charged

one of these fees on your recent purchase of an automobile. We obtained this information in response

to a Freedom of Information Act request to the

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles.

The exact nature of your legal situation will

depend on facts not known to us at this time. You

should understand that the advice and information in this communication is general and that

your own situation may vary. However, we would

like the opportunity [to] discuss your rights and

options with you in a free consultation. If you are

interested in participating in the case or in a free consultation, please mail the enclosed postage paid card

and we will contact you soon.

You may wish to consult your lawyer or another

lawyer instead of us. You may obtain information

about other lawyers by consulting the Yellow

Pages or by calling the South Carolina Bar Lawyer Referral Service at 799-7100 in Columbia or

toll free at 1-800-868-2284. If you have already

engaged a lawyer in connection with the legal

matter referred to in this communication, you

8 MARACICH v. SPEARS
should direct any questions you have to that lawyer.

J.A. 487 (emphases in original). The Lawyers filed a copy of

the letter and a list of recipients’ names and addresses with

the South Carolina Office of Disciplinary Counsel, as

required by South Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3,

which regulates the solicitation of prospective clients. The

emphasized text of the third and fourth paragraphs, and the

prominent placement of the phrase "advertising material,"

complied with the provisions of Rule 7.3, as well. See S.C.R.

Prof. Con. 7.3(d)(1), (2).

Later in January 2007, Harpootlian made two more FOIA

requests of the DMV, seeking personal information of people

who had purchased cars between June 1 and September 2,

2006, from an additional 31 dealerships. Then, Harpootlian

submitted the final FOIA request on January 23, 2007,

requesting personal information and dealership information

for all purchasers of new and used cars during September 1-

14, 2006, and December 10-24, 2006. The three requests

again cited only the litigation exception to the DPPA and all

were granted by the DMV. 

On the same day as the last FOIA request, the Lawyers

mailed a second round of letters to car buyers whose personal

information had been disclosed by the DMV. These letters,

which differed from the first mailing only by minor formatting changes, were sent to 1,283 people. Meanwhile, in state

court, various defendant dealerships filed a Joint Memorandum to Dismiss, again asserting that "for every named Dealer,

there had to be a corresponding named Consumer who was a

customer." Appellees’ Br. 8; J.A. 666. 

In March 2007, the Lawyers mailed two more rounds of

letters to a total of 21,116 purchasers identified through the

FOIA requests. Shortly thereafter, counsel for some of the

dealership defendants in Herron wrote to the Lawyers, assertMARACICH v. SPEARS 9
ing that the FOIA requests and subsequent mailings violated

a state law generally prohibiting certain solicitations based on

information obtained from state agencies, but not mentioning

the DPPA. The Lawyers responded by invoking the DPPA

and reiterating that the litigation exception to the DPPA

applied to their FOIA requests. The Lawyers further asserted

that the letters mailed to car buyers had been made to conform

to the requirements of a client solicitation under the South

Carolina lawyer disciplinary rules only because "we knew

that your group would try to see if we had met the requirements of the Disciplinary Counsel. In an abundance of caution

we followed the requirements." J.A. 337. The Lawyers

asserted that no violation of state law regarding prohibited

solicitation had occurred because "we are not marketing or

selling a consumer product or service." Id.

In March 2007, Appellant Maracich received one of the letters mailed to car buyers by the Lawyers. While his personal

information had been disclosed to the Lawyers because he

was one of many buyers from a particular dealership, Maracich also happened to be the Director of Sales and Marketing

at that dealership.

Two months later, the Lawyers sent two rounds of letters

to a total of 11,547 car buyers identified from the FOIA

requests. Appellants Martha Weeks and John Tanner allege

that they received letters from the Lawyers around this time.

According to Tanner, after receiving the letter he called Harpootlian to find out how his contact information was obtained.

During the conversation, he was subjected to "an aggressive

sales pitch" to "sign up as a client for a lawsuit," and was told

that he could receive "two to three times" the fee amount he

had paid at purchase. J.A. 1448. Tanner further avers that during this conversation, Harpootlian never asked about the circumstances of his purchase. 

In June 2007, in response to continuing disputes over standing in the Herron litigation, the Lawyers moved to further

10 MARACICH v. SPEARS
amend their Amended Complaint to join nearly 250 additional

named plaintiffs who had come forward in response to the

mailings. The dealerships opposed the motion, now arguing

that the proposed additional plaintiffs had been contacted in

violation of the DPPA. The state court ultimately denied the

motion to amend, and ruled that the named plaintiffs had

standing only as to dealerships with which they had engaged

in transactions.3

Consequently, in September 2007, the claimants who had

been denied joinder in Herron brought independent actions in

state court, which were then consolidated with Herron. All

claims against dealerships without a corresponding plaintiffpurchaser were dropped in the interest of foreclosing any further controversy over standing.

Addressing another Motion to Substitute a plaintiff, the

state court in the Herron litigation in October 2009 reiterated

a number of key rulings in the case up to that point: (1) the

plaintiffs had "a substantive statutory right . . . to proceed ‘for

the benefit of the whole’. . . ‘without a requirement that the

plaintiff plead and prove the class certification requirements

under S.C.R.P. Rule 23’"; (2) "each named Plaintiff had

standing to sue for himself and in a representative capacity for

other[s] against the Defendant that transacted business with

that named Plaintiff"; (3) "This is not a Rule 23, SCRP class

action. This is a group representative action under the Dealers

Act . . . . Nothing in the Dealers Act requires the Plaintiffs to

move for class certification"; and (4) "Plaintiff’s counsel, as

private attorneys general, from the inception of this litigation

have represented the public interest in attempting to regulate

allegedly unfair practices . . . and therefore represent all those

affected by such practices." J.A. 1354, 1355, 1357.4

3The court further ruled, however, that the existing plaintiffs could

acquire standing as to any defendant that was shown by discovery to have

joined a conspiracy to charge improper fees. 

4The long-pending Herron litigation has had something of a tortuous

journey. When the trial court denied the dealerships’ motion to compel

MARACICH v. SPEARS 11
B.

Nearly three years after the Herron litigation commenced,

the Buyers (who are represented in this case by the same

counsel who represents several of the dealerships in the Herron litigation) filed the instant putative class action against the

Lawyers, alleging violations of the DPPA related to the acquisition and use of the Buyers’ personal information from DMV

records through the Lawyers’ FOIA requests. The Complaint

asserted damages claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a). Specifically, the Buyers alleged that the Lawyers unlawfully

obtained personal information as defined by the DPPA, 18

U.S.C. § 2725(3), see supra n.1, by knowingly requesting,

"under false pretenses," information for the prohibited use of

solicitation, "and then using the Personal Information for the

statutorily prohibited purpose of mailing lawyer advertising

and solicitation materials to Plaintiffs." J.A. 19. The Buyers

sought liquidated damages of $2,500 for each instance of

unlawful conduct, compensatory and punitive damages, a perarbitration, the dealerships took an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme

Court of South Carolina granted certification, brought up the appeal from

the Court of Appeals, and reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial

court’s ruling, concluding, ultimately, that although the arbitration clause

at issue was otherwise enforceable, its prohibition on class arbitration violated the public policy of South Carolina. See Herron v. Century BMW,

693 S.E.2d 394 (S.C. 2011). Upon the filing by the dealerships of a petition for certiorari, the United States Supreme Court granted the writ,

vacated the judgment, and remanded the action to the South Carolina

Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (holding that California state law rule that

prohibited a waiver of class arbitration in a retail sales contract was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act). Upon the South Carolina Supreme

Court’s reconsideration of Herron after the remand, the court held that the

dealerships had forfeited the argument that the class arbitration bar under

the public policy of South Carolina was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act by failing to raise it in the trial court or before the South Carolina

Supreme Court in the interlocutory appeal. Herron v. Century BMW, 719

S.E.2d 640 (S.C. 2011). 

12 MARACICH v. SPEARS
manent injunction, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest on

the monetary awards.5

The Lawyers promptly moved to dismiss all counts in the

Complaint, arguing (among other issues) that the Buyers’ personal information was obtained for the permissible use provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(4), the litigation exception, and

in 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1), the state action exception.6 The

5Section 2724 provides: 

(a) Cause of action.—A person who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record,

for a purpose not permitted under this chapter shall be liable to

the individual to whom the information pertains, who may bring

a civil action in a United States district court. 

(b) Remedies.—The court may award— 

(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the

amount of $2,500; 

(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law; 

(3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and 

(4) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court

determines to be appropriate. 

18 U.S.C. § 2724. See Condon, 528 U.S. at 146-47 (stating that the

§ 2724(a) cause of action is for knowingly obtaining, disclosing, or using

personal information "for a use other than those specifically permitted by

the DPPA"). The Buyers alleged four separate counts in their Complaint,

all arising under the DPPA, against all four of the Lawyers (and their

respective law firms), and seemingly resting on the following separate theories: (1) willful violations of the DPPA; (2) negligent violations of the

DPPA; (3) respondeat superior liability, generally; and (4) concert of

action, generally. 

6The so-called "state action" exception under the DPPA provides as follows: 

(1) For use by any government agency, including any court or

law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local

agency in carrying out its functions. 

MARACICH v. SPEARS 13
motion also argued that the Lawyers "already represented" the

people they had contacted using the DMV information by virtue of the group action under the Dealers Act, and the attorneys had moreover been "obligated" to find and contact

buyers to ensure that the suit was not dismissed on standing

grounds as to certain members of that group. 

In addition, the Lawyers noted that the lead counsel for the

Buyers in the instant case also represented several of the

defendant dealerships in Herron. They argued that this relationship created a conflict of interest, and that representation

of the Buyers in federal court by the dealerships’ attorneys

should be prohibited in any event because to the extent that

the Buyers were members of the plaintiff group in Herron,

they were already represented by the Lawyers. In sum, the

Lawyers charged that the DPPA litigation was an "obstructionist legal tactic," designed to undermine the Herron litigation. J.A. 158. 

The district court rejected each of the Lawyers’ arguments

for dismissal. The court ruled, in pertinent part, that the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the Lawyers

and buyer group members in Herron was a disputed factual

issue and thus the litigation exception to the DPPA did not

apply at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and that the state action

exception did not apply because the Lawyers, though acting

as "private attorneys general" in a group action context, were

not for that reason alone agents of the government. Furthermore, the court admonished that any assertion regarding the

impropriety of the representation of the class should be

expressed in a motion to disqualify counsel on the ground of

conflict of interest. 

18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1) (emphasis added). The Lawyers argued that, in

their role as "private attorneys general" under the Dealers Act, the state

action exception applied to their FOIA requests leading to, and facilitating,

the Herron litigation. 

14 MARACICH v. SPEARS
In their Answer and Counterclaim, the Lawyers asserted, in

effect, that this action was proof of the sports aphorism that

the best defense is an aggressive offense: "This is now clearly

seen as a multi-million dollar-fear lawsuit designed to interfere with and discover the legal bases of an underlying lawsuit

involving consumers against car dealers and their illegal

charging of secret fees. It is designed to chill, if not kill, an

ongoing legitimate lawsuit." J.A. 175. After alleging a host of

affirmative defenses, the Lawyers requested by way of their

counterclaim a declaratory judgment that the DPPA’s solicitation provision does not apply to permissible litigation-related

uses of personal information. Such a construction was proper,

they argued, because "Congress intended for lawyers to have

unfettered access and use of DMV information for use in litigation." J.A. 189.

Discovery commenced, haltingly, but on January 25, 2010,

the district court addressed the Lawyers’ Motion to Stay,

which argued that discovery would involve documents from

the Herron litigation that fall within the attorney-client and

work product privileges, and should therefore be stayed while

that case proceeded. Agreeing that there were "numerous

privilege issues" at stake, the district court ordered a sixmonth stay in the federal DPPA action, suspending discovery.

J.A. 196.

Just weeks later, the Buyers moved to lift the stay to undertake class certification discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Following a hearing, during which the Lawyers "stated that

they could file a motion for summary judgment without the

need for any discovery," J.A. 203, and the Buyers stated that

discovery would likewise be unnecessary to prepare their

response to such a motion and their own motion, the district

court denied the motion to lift the stay with the expectation

that summary judgment proceedings would proceed. 

The Buyers and the Lawyers promptly filed cross-motions

for summary judgment only three days apart; the former

MARACICH v. SPEARS 15
sought a partial summary judgment on liability only, and the

latter sought judgment in full as to all of the Buyers’ claims,

relying on several theories. The Lawyers made essentially the

same arguments they had asserted in their unsuccessful

Motion to Dismiss.7 This time, however, the district court was

receptive. 

The court first addressed the Buyers’ argument that the

Lawyers had provided no sworn statements as to their subjective intent regarding the FOIA requests and car buyer mailings, and relied instead solely on the Herron-related pleadings

and other documents to establish the purpose of their conduct

in seeking the Buyers’ personal information. The court

rejected the Buyers’ argument, noting that the Buyers were

themselves relying on the documents related to the Herron litigation in support of their motion, and that the Herron-related

filings were of unquestioned authenticity, legally sufficient,

and ultimately, highly probative regarding the issues before

the court; the documents were therefore a proper basis on

which to resolve the motions for summary judgment. 

Addressing the somewhat unusual nature of the Lawyers’

relationship to the group of buyers in Herron, the court

explained that under the state court ruling in the Herron litigation, there is a "substantive right to representation for the

‘benefit of the whole’" provided by the Dealers Act, and

therefore the Lawyers’ status in the Herron litigation was

"distinct yet analogous to attorney representation in a class

action under [South Carolina’s class action provision]." J.A.

1475. In light of the unique representative function under

group action, the Lawyers had at least a fiduciary duty to all

buyers affected by the Dealers Act violations alleged. As a

7The Buyers’ motion urged the court to rule that acquisition and use of

information under the DPPA must both (1) meet all the requirements of

permissibility and (2) avoid any impermissible categorization. The district

court addressed the cross-motions together, as discussed above. 

16 MARACICH v. SPEARS
result, the court ruled, "The [Lawyers] did not solicit

unnamed buyers as a matter of law." J.A. 1477.8

The court then ruled broadly that even where the acquisition and use of personal information does fall within the solicitation prohibition of the DPPA (for want of the express

consent of the persons to whom the personal information pertained), such conduct is nonetheless lawful under the DPPA

in the absence of consent if it also comes within one of the

permitted use provisions. In this regard, the court rejected the

Buyers’ reliance on the reasoning of Pichler v. UNITE, 542

F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2008), and Wemhoff v. District of Columbia,

887 A.2d 1004 (D.C. Ct. App. 2005), and followed instead,

as urged by the Lawyers, the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in

Rine v. Imagitas, Inc., 590 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2009).

The court specifically ruled that the acquisition and use of

the car buyers’ personal information before the Herron action

was filed met the "investigation in anticipation of litigation"

permitted use of 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(4), and that the acquisition and use of the car buyers’ personal information after the

commencement of that action were "in connection with [a]

civil . . . proceeding," as also permitted by the litigation

exception. Despite its rejection of the argument when it was

raised in the earlier motion to dismiss, the court also ruled that

the Lawyers’ conduct was lawful under the state action exception of the DPPA because their role in Herron was adequately

analogous to that of a state attorney general. Summary judgment was therefore granted in favor of the Lawyers and all the

Buyers’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, as was the

Lawyers’ counterclaim, as moot.

8Concluding that "the undisputed facts" indicated permissible uses of

the information, J.A. 1491, and noting that compliance with the state solicitation rules in the wording of the FOIA requests was reasonable and did

not make the letters solicitation per se, the court concluded that there was

no plausible basis on which to find that the DPPA had been violated. 

MARACICH v. SPEARS 17
II.

The Buyers timely appealed and now argue before us that

the district court erred in its ruling on three issues, namely, in

concluding that: (1) as a matter of law, the Lawyers’ conduct

did not constitute solicitation under the DPPA; (2) conduct in

obtaining and using personal information under the DPPA is

lawful and non-actionable, even where that conduct also evidences an impermissible use; and (3) the Lawyers’ conduct

came within either the litigation or state action permissible

use exceptions of the DPPA. We agree with the Buyers that

the district court erred in concluding that no solicitation

within the contemplation of the DPPA was shown. Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s determination that despite

the evidence of non-consensual solicitation, the summary

judgment record establishes as a matter of law that the Lawyers’ conduct in obtaining and using the Buyers’ personal

information fell within a permissible use under the DPPA, the

litigation exception, and that, under the circumstances of this

case, the Buyers’ claims fail as a matter of law because the

solicitation was integral to, and inextricably intertwined with,

conduct clearly permitted by the litigation exception.9

A.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. News

& Observer v. Raleigh-Durham Airport, 597 F.3d 570, 576

(4th Cir. 2010). As provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 

9

In light of our holding that the litigation exception applied to the Lawyers’ conduct and forecloses the Buyers’ claims, we have no occasion to

review the district court’s alternative ruling that the state action exception

also applies under the circumstances of this case. 

18 MARACICH v. SPEARS
Facts are "material" when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a "genuine issue" exists when

the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return

a verdict for the nonmoving party. The moving party

is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law" when the

nonmoving party fails to make an adequate showing

on an essential element for which it has the burden

of proof at trial. "[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party’s evidence is

to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be

drawn in that party’s favor." Hunt v. Cromartie, 526

U.S. 541, 552 (1999) (internal quotations omitted).

To overcome a motion for summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party "may not rely merely on

allegations or denials in its own pleading" but must

"set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for

trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

News & Observer, 597 F.3d at 576 (some citations omitted).10

Similarly, "[t]he district court’s analysis of the statutes in the

instant case presents questions of law which we review de

novo." WLR Foods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 65 F.3d 1172,

1178 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1117 (1996).

10In their statement of the Standard of Review, the Buyers briefly raise

the argument that "a court cannot, as in this case, grant summary judgment

while denying the nonmoving party discovery of documents or the right

to take witness or party depositions regarding facts deemed material under

its interpretation of the law." Appellants’ Br. 21-22. The record indicates

quite clearly, however, that the Buyers agreed they would not need discovery to file an adequate opposition to a motion for summary judgment, if

it involved only the same arguments offered in the motion to dismiss. J.A.

201-02. The two motions did ultimately rely on the same arguments, based

on references to the undisputed facts (arising from the existence of

readily-available documents whose authenticity was unquestioned) from

Herron. Because the Buyers waived their right to discovery before the district court entertained the motion for summary judgment, the district court

did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating the motion on the record presented by the parties without the benefit of full discovery. 

MARACICH v. SPEARS 19
B.

The first issue before us concerns construction of the word

"solicitation," as it appears in the DPPA’s list of enumerated

"permissible uses" of DMV information: "Personal information . . . may be disclosed . . . for bulk distribution for surveys,

marketing, or solicitations if the State has obtained the

express consent of the person to whom such personal information pertains." 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(12). The district court

ruled that the mailings by the Lawyers were not solicitations

for the purposes of the DPPA as a matter of law because of

the Lawyers’ actual, if inchoate, representative relationship to

all members of the Herron group of consumers. The Buyers

argue this ruling was erroneous for two reasons: (1) the plain,

express language of the letters — which conformed to South

Carolina’s requirements for solicitation by attorneys, and

were therefore labeled clearly "ADVERTISING MATERIAL" — indicates that they were, in fact, solicitations, and

(2) the Lawyers did not have an attorney-client, or representative, relationship with the contacted buyers and thus communication with these people was solicitation insofar as the

recipients were potential clients, not actual clients. 

In essence, the Buyers are arguing for an objective standard

for defining solicitation: the letters looked like solicitations,

conformed to the requirements for solicitations, and they

accomplished the aim of solicitations, i.e., finding potential

named plaintiffs for the Herron litigation. In ruling that the

letters were not solicitations, the district court instead applied

a subjective standard, taking into primary account the motives

of the Lawyers and the context in which their requests were

made.

Without question, the South Carolina solicitation regulations for "Direct Contact with Prospective Clients," to which

these letters conformed, are explicitly designed to protect

recipients from overtures that might be overwhelming, confusing, misleading, or against their best interests. See S.C.R.

20 MARACICH v. SPEARS
Prof. Con. 7.3, cmts. 1, 5, 8; see also Bates v. State Bar of

Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 383 (1977) (noting the acceptability of

restrictions on legal advertising to avoid misleading prospective clients). These concerns focus on the perception of the

reader or listener, not the intentions of the attorney or the particular context in which the conduct occurs. In our view, an

objective standard best protects these interests because it prevents the dissemination of material that is likely to cause confusion or misguided reliance.

The Lawyers explain their compliance with the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct as simply "an abundance

of caution," rather than an indication that the letters constituted solicitation in fact. But the Lawyers’ contention proves

too much; caution was needed because, viewed objectively,

the mailings constituted "solicitations." Their argument that

their role in Herron as ostensible private attorneys general,

allegedly ratified by the state court rulings described above,

conferred the rights and duties of counsel on them and therefore any communication with group members (named or

unnamed in the suit at the time) is unpersuasive. There is no

inherent inconsistency between their role, even if true, as private attorneys general, on the one hand, and their need to "solicit" potential clients, on the other hand. By denoting the

letters as "advertising material," a reasonable recipient would

almost certainly have understood the message to be a solicitation from a lawyer. 

Even more important than the boilerplate solicitation language, the letter encouraged recipients to respond in order to

learn about their rights and "to participate in the case." J.A.

487. No mention was made of an investigation into certain

practices other than the implicit suggestion of investigation

during a "free consultation." J.A. 487. The letters also failed

to indicate to recipients that they may already be de facto clients of the Lawyers, that is, persons whose interests were

already protected by the senders. In short, the Lawyers preMARACICH v. SPEARS 21
sented their communication as solicitation, whether they

believed it (then or now) to be or not. 

Thus, we apply an appropriately consumer-protective

objective standard for construing the DPPA term "solicitation." Accordingly, and consistent with the common understanding of the meaning of the word as targeted lawyer

advertising aimed at affording representation to potential clients, see, e.g., Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466,

476 (1988) (evaluating constitutional propriety of state’s ban

on "targeted, direct-mail solicitation," and noting that while

such solicitation "presents lawyers with opportunities for isolated abuses or mistakes, . . . . [t]he State can regulate such

abuses and minimize mistakes through far less restrictive and

more precise means [than a total ban], the most obvious of

which is to require the lawyer to file any solicitation letter

with a state agency, . . . giving the State ample opportunity to

supervise mailings and penalize actual abuses"); see also

Ficker v. Curran, 119 F.3d 1150 (4th Cir. 1997), we are constrained to reject the district court’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, the Lawyers were not engaged in solicitation when

they contacted otherwise unknown car buyers they had identified through their FOIA requests. 

As the district court correctly recognized, however, this

determination is not dispositive. As we explain within,

although the record supports the Buyers’ contention that the

Lawyers engaged in solicitation, i.e., that they induced the

DMV to disclose the Buyers’ personal information in the

absence of the Buyers’ consent, because the solicitation was

entirely consistent with state law, was integral to, and was,

indeed, inextricably intertwined with the Lawyers’ permissible use of the Buyers’ personal information pursuant to the litigation exception, the Buyers’ claims fail as a matter of law.

C.

The Buyers’ second argument is equally as straightforward

as their first but far less persuasive. They contend that the dis22 MARACICH v. SPEARS
trict court erred in ruling that, as a matter of law, the nonconsensual use of personal information for solicitation is

nonetheless non-actionable under 18 U.S.C. § 2724, see supra

n.5, if the solicitation is sufficiently tied to a permissible use

under the litigation exception. In other words, and more generally, the Buyers urge a theory of DPPA liability in which

any impermissible use of personal information, e.g., solicitation absent consent, would violate the statute (and support a

damages action), even if, concomitantly, the personal information is put to a permissible use, i.e., in litigation. 

For the reasons explained below, without undertaking to

lay down a rule applicable in all future cases, we are persuaded that the most rational resolution of the manifest tension between the solicitation and litigation exceptions under

the DPPA compels us to reject the Buyers’ absolute rule. 

There is no Fourth Circuit precedent teaching how to reconcile, or read harmoniously, the permissible use provisions

of the DPPA, and indeed, the limited number of cases among

our sister circuits reflect that the law in this area is in a state

of continued evolution. See generally, Deborah F. Buchman,

Annotation, Validity, Construction, and Application of Federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2721 to

2725, 183 A.L.R. Fed. 37 (2011). 

That said, we note that the Eleventh Circuit has provided

a rather expansive sweep to the litigation exception of the

DPPA. In Thomas v. George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King, & Stevens, P.A., 525 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2008),

the court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a law firm

that had obtained the plaintiff’s personal information from the

Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

The defendant lawyer had obtained the plaintiff’s personal

information (together with that of 24,000 other Florida drivers) 

because the automobile dealers he was litigating

against were asserting that plaintiffs needed to plead

MARACICH v. SPEARS 23
and prove multiple acts of deceptive and unfair trade

practices to state a deceptive and unfair trade practice claim under Florida law . . . . [T]he information

was [then] used to send one-thousand "Custom and

Practice" letters, which aimed at obtaining evidence

showing a custom and practice of deceptive acts

engaged in by dealerships.

Id. at 1114 (footnote omitted). The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the lawyer’s distribution of "Custom and

Practice" letters to certain car buyers supported a claim based

on impermissible use, i.e., prohibited solicitation. Specifically, the court reasoned: 

as the district court rightly determined, the fact that

many records were retrieved, but only a comparatively small number were used for Custom and Practice letters did not, by itself, raise a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the litigation clause

applied. By affixing significance solely to the number of records relating to letters sent out, [plaintiff]

overlooked that [defendant’s] initial review of the

total amount of records is just as much tied to "investigation in anticipation of litigation" as the eventual sending out. [Plaintiff] failed, however to

discredit, or even address, the initial review.

Id. at 1115. Moreover, in considered dicta, the court gave

short shrift to the plaintiff’s complaint that the attorney’s "ulterior motive" in obtaining the DPPA personal information

was for use in potential future litigation.11 We can discern no

11The court stated: 

Thomas also argues that a particular excerpt from Hartz’s deposition indicates a "second ulterior motive" for obtaining the vehicle

records; i.e., they were obtained for the purpose of creating a

database of witnesses for prospective, not-yet-filed litigation—as

opposed to currently pending cases. Our review of the record

24 MARACICH v. SPEARS
inconsistency between the evident Congressional purpose in

the enactment of the DPPA of protecting privacy and the kind

of pragmatic approach to lawyer access to protected personal

information revealed by the Eleventh Circuit’s understanding

of the litigation exception. 

Consistent with its willingness to afford the litigation

exception a pragmatic scope as reflected in Thomas, the Eleventh Circuit has also shown its willingness to adopt a pragmatic reconciliation of the tension arising from the DPPA’s

prohibition (absent express consent) on solicitation when

solicitation is inextricably intertwined with a permitted use

under 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b). See Rine v. Imagitas, 590 F.3d

1215, 1226 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that non-consensual

solicitation that is inextricably intertwined as a matter of state

statutes with the state action exception is not actionable). 

In Rine, in which the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated actions brought by drivers in several states,

the state of Florida contracted with a marketing enterprise to

mail driver’s license renewal information. Id. at 1219. Pursuant to its agreement with the state, and consistent with prior

revenue-generating schemes pursued by the state and several

Florida counties, the contractor included in the driver’s

license renewal mailings focused commercial advertising

materials to such drivers, based on information contained in

and derived from DPPA-protected personal information. Id. at

1219-20. Some drivers sued, among others, the contractor, as

reveals that Thomas did not raise this particular argument below

and, as such, the argument is waived. Irving v. Mazda Motor

Corp., 136 F.3d 764, 769 (11th Cir. 1998). Nonetheless, the argument is without merit. The litigation clause refers to investigation

in anticipation of litigation. Thus, even if the accumulation of

potential witnesses related, in part, to certain cases not yet filed,

we do not see how pre-suit investigation can be considered per

se inapplicable to the litigation clause. 

525 F.3d at 1115 n.5. 

MARACICH v. SPEARS 25
the Buyers here have sued the Lawyers, alleging a violation

of the DPPA insofar as the state had failed to obtain their consent for the solicitation. In opposing the plaintiffs’ claims, the

contractor relied on the state action exception, arguing that it

was performing functions on behalf of the state (which exercised final approval over the advertising material).

In sustaining the district court’s legal conclusion that the

state action exception foreclosed the plaintiffs’ claims, the

Eleventh Circuit reasoned that "nothing in the DPPA suggests

that the (b)(12) [solicitation] exception alters the scope or

meaning of the separate and independent [state action] exception found in subsection (b)(1)." That is, where two provisions

overlap but "both apply to situations not governed by the

other," they "both must be given effect unless they ‘pose an

either-or proposition.’" Id. at 1226 (citing Conn. Nat’l Bank

v. Germain, 503 U.S. 244, 253 (1992)). The Rine court reasoned that unlike HCSC-Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S.

1 (1981), where as between two potentially applicable statutory provisions one was "general" and the other "specific," the

DPPA provisions are equally specific. Rine, 590 F.3d at 1226.

They are, moreover, "not mutually exclusive, meaning any

one or more of them may be applicable to a given situation."

Id. This reasoning commends itself to us.

The Buyers contend that the Eleventh Circuit’s resolution

of the tension between the solicitation prohibition and the permitted uses spelled out in § 2721(b) that do not require consent is misguided and urge us to adopt, instead, the holding

of the Third Circuit in Pichler v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380 (3d

Cir. 2008) ("Pichler V" per the Appellants).12 In Pichler V, the

12Pichler v. UNITE, a class action concerning a union’s use of DMV

information to contact employees for organizing drives and to pursue

impact litigation, has generated at least seven opinions to date. The Third

Circuit’s numbering for the series of opinions related to the case does not

match the numbering set out in the Appellants’ Brief; the Appellants mark

a 2004 decision denying a motion to dismiss as "Pichler I," while the

Third Circuit starts its count with a subsequent 2005 opinion certifying the

class. Compare Pichler, 542 F.3d at 385, with Appellants’ Br. 30 n.5. To

minimize confusion between the briefs before this court and our opinion,

we will follow the Appellants’ numbering. 

26 MARACICH v. SPEARS
court affirmed summary judgment of liability against the

union defendants in a DPPA case, agreeing with the lower

court that "[t]he [DPPA] contains no language that would

excuse an impermissible use merely because it was executed

in conjunction with a permissible [use]." Id. at 395 (citing

Pichler v. UNITE, 446 F. Supp. 2d 353, 367 (E.D. Pa. 2006)

("Pichler III"). The lower court had reasoned that because the

DPPA imposes liability for acquisition and use of information

"for a purpose not permitted," any impermissible use was

actionable, regardless of other circumstances supporting a

finding that a permissible use provision was also satisfied.

Pichler III, 446 F. Supp. 2d at 367. But we find that Pichler

is plainly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances in

the case at bar.13 There, the union conceded that it obtained

13The Buyers also seek solace in Wemhoff v. District of Columbia, 887

A.2d 1004 (D.C. Ct. App. 2005), in which a lawyer attempted to compel

disclosure of DMV information about drivers ticketed for red light camera

infractions at a particular intersection, when he did not yet represent any

affected person and had no on-going "investigation" of red-light cameras

beyond his attempt to find out the identities of those who had been ticketed. The Wemhoff court sustained the agency’s refusal to make the disclosure, finding the request was for use in solicitation rather than in

anticipation of litigation, and was therefore subject to the express consent

requirement of section (b)(12). 

Wemhoff held that "in anticipation of litigation" meant use for "the type

of background work or search for material which would determine, substantively, whether one has a viable theory of litigation, or enough of a

basis to avoid a motion for sanctions that a frivolous lawsuit has been

filed." 887 A.2d at 1011-12. This test for attenuation was adopted from the

district court’s opinion in Pichler, which reasoned that the exception

applied only where defendants could prove "(1) they undertook an actual

investigation; (2) at the time of the investigation, litigation appeared

likely; and (3) the protected information obtained during the investigation

would be of ‘use’ in the litigation. . . " Wemhoff, 887 A.2d at 1011 (citing

Pichler v. UNITE, 339 F. Supp. 2d 665, 666 (E.D. Pa. 2004) ("Pichler I")).

On appeal, however, the Third Circuit pointedly noted that it "need not

address the District Court’s interpretation of the litigation and the acting

on behalf of the government exceptions." 542 F.3d at 395. 

We find that Wemhoff is plainly distinguishable from this case because,

as the court in that case indicated, the lawyer was merely trolling for clients in the hope that litigation might be in the offing. 

MARACICH v. SPEARS 27
the workers’ personal information for a non-permitted use:

union organizing. It somewhat belatedly and unpersuasively

argued that its union organizing activities could not be disaggregated from its litigation activities. The Third Circuit

majority emphatically rejected this argument.14

At bottom, we easily conclude from these somewhat conflicting approaches to the DPPA that the Eleventh Circuit’s

approach provides the better reasoned interpretation of the

Act under the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Just

as the Florida statutes in Rine clearly authorized solicitation

in connection with the state’s license renewal schemes, South

Carolina law and legal ethics norms not only permitted the

type of solicitation engaged in by the Lawyers here, but in the

context of the particular investigation and incipient litigation

they pursued under the Dealers Act, contact with potential clients was entirely consistent with a pragmatic understanding of

the litigation exception under the DPPA. 

The DPPA provides, "It shall be unlawful for any person

knowingly to obtain or disclose information, from a motor

vehicle record, for any use not permitted under Section (b) of

this title." 18 U.S.C. § 2722. Thus, the DPPA makes unlawful

"any use not permitted" in subsection (b). In Pichler, where

the DPPA defendant claimed to have obtained information for

14The court could not have been more clear: 

The litigation component to UNITE’s campaign should not

obscure what UNITE was trying to accomplish-organizing labor.

The same may be said for its acting on behalf of the government

purpose. UNITE candidly admits that it launched the "campaign

to organize and unionize Cintas workers." App. 226. Moreover,

the organizers themselves, in conducting their home visits, unambiguously explained that they were "organizing a union campaign

against Cintas." App. 238. Regardless of UNITE’s attempts to

mask this clear labor-organizing purpose behind the veil of a litigation purpose or an acting on behalf of the government purpose,

Congress has not permitted UNITE to do so. 

542 F.3d at 395-96. 

28 MARACICH v. SPEARS
two entirely distinct uses (union organizing, not a permitted

use, and in anticipation of litigation, a permitted use), the

court rejected the union’s disingenuous attempt, admitting of

only marginal coherence, to marry an unpermitted use with a

permitted one. In contrast, the Lawyers here always had only

one use as their purpose, i.e., litigation, litigation that at all

times of their conduct was either imminent or ongoing. The

Lawyers’ satisfaction of the state solicitation requirements

was inextricably intertwined with their intended permitted use

of the personal information they obtained. See Ficker, 119

F.3d at 1153 (noting that "the Supreme Court observed in

Bates that the dissemination of advertising information to the

public had the potential to contribute substantially to fair legal

process . . . . Similarly, in Peel, 496 U.S. at 110, 110 S.Ct. at

2293, the Court noted that such advertising ‘facilitates the

consumer’s access to legal services and thus better serves the

administration of justice’").

In such circumstances, we agree with the Rine court that

full effect should be given to the permissive uses protected by

the litigation exception. To hold otherwise would effectively

transform the DPPA’s phrase, "any use not permitted," into

"use not permitted for any reason" — a shift unsupported by

the language, the purpose or the structure of the Act, and contrary to the public interest benefits that can inhere in impact

litigation specifically aimed at protecting consumers on a

broad scale. In the context of the circumstances presented in

this case, it is no stretch to say that the Lawyers simply could

not make appropriate, efficient and ethical use of the Buyers’

personal information under our pragmatic approach to the litigation exception without first engaging in solicitation, and

they did so in a manner that was entirely in keeping with

applicable state ethics norms. Put simply, they did what any

good lawyer would have done; Congress could not possibly

have intended to impose DPPA liability under such circumstances.

We therefore hold that as to DPPA provisions (b)(4) and

(b)(12), conduct that might, prima facie, amount to prohibited

MARACICH v. SPEARS 29
solicitation (i.e., that prohibited absent express consent) leading to a disclosure of personal information, does not give rise

to a cognizable claim under the DPPA when such use in solicitation is coextensive with, and inextricably intertwined with,

conduct expressly permitted pursuant to the litigation exception. Rine, 590 F.3d at 1226. We determine next whether the

district court erred in concluding that the litigation exception

applies to the undisputed facts reflected in the record of this

case.

D.

As stated above, the district court ruled that the litigation

exception applied to the Lawyers’ conduct because, as a matter of law, the undisputed facts demonstrated that they

obtained and used the Buyers’ personal information with the

singular purpose of employing it in their investigation in

anticipation of, and in connection with the prosecution of, the

Herron litigation:

The initial complaint and the amended complaint in

the Herron litigation are evidence that the information obtained from the first two FOIA requests was

useful in determining whether to file a group action

. . . . The Plaintiffs have failed to come forward with

any evidence to dispute the Defendants’ evidence

that the personal information from the first two

FOIA requests was obtained in order to assist in

identifying the highest volume dealers.

J.A. 1483-84. This conclusion is unassailable on the present

record.

The Buyers argue that this determination was erroneous

because the Lawyers "did not come forward with any evidence that they could introduce at trial in support of their

position [that the exception applied to their conduct] . . . .

None." Appellants’ Br. 39. They assert that the district court

30 MARACICH v. SPEARS
relied solely on the Lawyers’ "self-serving, unsworn assertions," and a handful of documents that were irrelevant to the

legal question or, in the case of the Herron documents, were

merely contextual. Appellants’ Br. 38-9. The Lawyers counter

that under the DPPA the Buyers have the burden to offer evidence of an impermissible purpose, yet in the face of the documented FOIA requests and the DMV’s compliance — both

of which were carried out under express invocation of the litigation exception — the Buyers only conclusorily describe the

Lawyers’ purpose and use as "solicitation." The Lawyers

clearly have the better of the argument.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c):

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely

disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the

record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,

stipulations (including those made for purposes of

the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers,

or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish

the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that

an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence

to support the fact.

We are satisfied that the district court did not err in concluding that the Buyers failed to generate a genuine dispute of

material fact concerning the applicability of the litigation

exception. 

First, the Buyers’ arguments throughout the proceedings

below had been focused solely on the applicability of the litigation provision as a matter of law, i.e., that it did not protect

the use here because the solicitation provision applied as well

MARACICH v. SPEARS 31
and imposed liability regardless of any other permitted use.

They did not, however, produce or suggest any evidence that

the provision did not apply as a factual matter.

The strongest substantive argument we might construe

from the Buyers’ position is that solicitation cannot occur "in

anticipation of" or "in connection with" litigation, 18 U.S.C.

§ 2721(b)(4), and that if the Lawyers solicited they could not,

by definition, have been acting in anticipation of, or in connection with, litigation. Plainly, we have rejected that contention above. In our view, such a position would improperly

constrict the common meaning of "in anticipation of" and "in

connection with." The solicitation of clients by trial lawyers

is surely connected to litigation in that representation for a

legal claim is the goal. Here, where the Lawyers already had

been contacted by potential clients, it cannot be said they

were merely "trolling." Rather, the summary judgment record

before us leaves no room to doubt that the Lawyers were

looking to build and bolster a case against the dealerships if

their initial information from consumers proved the existence

of plausibly systemic violations of the Dealers Act.

Moreover, as to the Buyers’ contention of procedural irregularity, the district court properly considered the complaints

in Herron because the allegations made in that case corroborated the expressly stated intended and actual use of the letters

in dispute. The Buyers failed to provide any evidence refuting

the explicit language of the FOIA requests and letters, which

solely support the claim that the Lawyers’ conduct was either

for use in "investigation in anticipation of litigation" or "in

connection with" a civil proceeding. Id.

To be sure, the Buyers correctly note that the district court

declined to take judicial notice of these documents for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss. At the time of that

motion, the court explained:

[T]he court declines to take judicial notice of the

exhibits attached to the Defendants’ motion in this

32 MARACICH v. SPEARS
case which largely consist of pleadings and transcripts in the Herron litigation . . . . The facts in the

Herron litigation remain in dispute. Therefore, the

court cannot take judicial notice of the contents of

those documents.

J.A. 167. Thus, the district court took a cautious approach in

its consideration of the Lawyers’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, for purposes of the subsequent cross-motions for summary judgment, the Herron complaints and related documents were useful (and used) not to

determine the factual basis of the Dealers Act claims, but as

evidence only of the actual use of the Buyers’ personal information obtained via the serial FOIA requests in connection

with that litigation. The complaints evidenced the ends to

which the information was requested and used, and therefore

were relevant, material and admissible evidence of facts at

issue—permissible purpose in the Lawyers’ requesting that

the DMV make the disclosure of, and permitted use of the

personal information thereafter. We agree with the Eleventh

Circuit that the Buyers bore the risk of non-persuasion on all

elements of their claims, Thomas, 525 F.3d at 1114-15, and

here the summary judgment record does not remotely show a

genuine dispute of material fact. 

We therefore hold that the district court properly took judicial notice of the Herron documents as probative evidence of

the intended, and actual, use of the Buyers’ DPPA-protected

personal information. Furthermore, we agree that the Buyers

failed to offer any evidence generating an issue of material

fact as to whether the use here was inextricably intertwined

with investigation and prosecution of the Herron litigation.

Thus, the district court did not err in its grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Lawyers as to the applicability of the

litigation exception. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court

erred in its determination that the conduct of the Appellees

MARACICH v. SPEARS 33
did not constitute solicitation within the contemplation of the

applicable DPPA prohibition. Nevertheless, the court correctly ruled that the Appellees’ conduct in respect to the Buyers’ personal information was undertaken in anticipation of

and in connection with litigation, a use clearly permitted by

the DPPA. The propriety of that use having been established

as a matter of law, and the antecedent solicitation being integral and necessary to, and inextricably intertwined with, the

Lawyers’ permitted use of the Appellants’ personal information, the Appellants’ claims fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

34 MARACICH v. SPEARS