Opinion ID: 181836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Intentional or Willful Issue

Text: Section 552a(g)(4) of the Privacy Act provides: (4) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection (g)(1)(C) or (D) of this section in which the court determines that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or willful, the United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of  (A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000; and (B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court. Pursuant to this provision, it is clear that [t]he [Privacy] Act does not make the Government strictly liable for every affirmative or negligent action that might be said technically to violate the Privacy Act's provisions. Albright v. United States, 732 F.2d 181, 189 (D.C.Cir.1984). Rather, under the case law construing and applying section 552a(g)(4), we have held that a violation of the statute must be so patently egregious and unlawful that anyone undertaking the conduct should have known it unlawful. Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1122 (D.C.Cir.2007) quoting Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Intentional or willful means: somewhat greater than gross negligence, or, an act committed without grounds for believing it to be lawful, or by flagrantly disregarding others' rights under the Act. Waters v. Thornburgh, 888 F.2d 870, 875 (D.C.Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 124 S.Ct. 1204, 157 L.Ed.2d 1122 (2004). The decision in Albright is illustrative of the burden of proof that claimants must meet in order to satisfy the intentional or willful element of the Privacy Act. Albright involved a case in which analysts at the Social Security Administration sought redress under the Privacy Act on the grounds that agency officials impermissibly videotaped an informational meeting attended by analysts to discuss a management decision to downgrade their civil service classification. The District Court concluded that the agency's action did not give rise to damages under the Privacy Act because there was no evidence that agency officials acted intentionally or willfully to violate appellants' rights. Albright, 732 F.2d at 183. We affirmed. In construing § 552a(g)(4), Albright held that: The terms intentional and willful must be interpreted in their context to determine their meaning. Under Section 552a(g)(1)(D) liability is predicated on an agency's failure to comply with the Privacy Act. Thus, the intentional or willful action requirement of Section 552a(g)(4) refers only to the intentional or willful failure of the agency to abide by the Act, and not to all voluntary actions which might otherwise inadvertently contravene one of the Act's strictures. Section 552a(g)(4) imposes liability only when the agency acts in violation of the Act in a willful or intentional manner, either by committing the act without grounds for believing it to be lawful, or by flagrantly disregarding others' rights under the Act. Id. at 189 (footnotes omitted). During proceedings before the District Court in Albright, the agency presented unrefuted evidence establishing that the idea of a videotape originated from an employee who had to miss the meeting, that the principal purpose of the tape was to enable the agency to provide a full record of the events of the meeting to absent employees, and that the agency had offered to destroy the videotape. Id. at 189-90. The court found that, under the applicable legal standard, this evidence demonstrated that the agency acted with a legitimate and lawful purpose and not pursuant to a proscribed intention of infringing upon the employees' Privacy Act rights. Id. at 185. The appellants in Albright offered no affirmative evidence of their own, but merely claim[ed] that [trial witness] testimony could have established other motives for the videotaping. Id. at 190 (emphasis added). We concluded that speculation on appeal about the possible content of ... testimony cannot rectify the plaintiffs' failure to meet their burden of proof on this critical element of the case and found dismissal of the Privacy Act claims justified. Id. Unlike Albright, the proceedings before the District Court in this case involved a summary judgment, not a trial. Nonetheless, the controlling legal standards are the same. In order to survive the Government's motion for summary judgment on the intentional or willful issue, the appellants were required to proffer evidence that the Government's actions were:  so patently egregious and unlawful that anyone undertaking the conduct should have known it unlawful, or  somewhat greater than gross negligence, or  committed without grounds for believing them to be lawful, or  in flagrant disregard of others' rights under the Act. Plaintiffs who oppose summary judgment on the intent issue cannot prevail by merely presenting evidence that the government acted negligently, or that the government handled a matter in a disjointed, or confused manner, or that the government acted inadvertently to contravene the Act. Waters, 888 F.2d at 875-76 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Appellants in this case did not come close to satisfying these standards in their submissions to the District Court. Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In this case, the Government supported its motion for summary judgment with affidavits explaining the motives and purposes of the BOP officials who engaged in the disputed photo review and retention practices. See, e.g., Williams Decl. ¶ 6, reprinted in App. 360-61. We agree with the Government that the evidence proffered on behalf of BOP demonstrated that the agency had both a legitimate purpose in retaining the photos and their practice of retention was perfectly consistent with its stated purpose. Br. for Appellees at 12. We do not mean to say that the photo review and retention practices were consistent with the requirements of the Privacy Act, but we do find that the Government's evidence clearly supports its claim that the practices were not impermissibly intentional or willful. In response to the Government's motion for summary judgment, the appellants offered nothing of substance to counter the Government's evidence. Rather, appellants merely argued that BOP officials must have known that they were violating the Privacy Act because the controversial and long-running litigation put them on clear notice of this issue, and wrongful intent could be inferred from the agency's continued retention of duplicate photos. See Pls.' Memo. in Opp. to the Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 11-15, reprinted in App. 288-92. This was far short of what is required by Rule 56 to defeat a motion for summary judgment. It is true that summary judgment will not lie . . . if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). However, [t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In this case, appellants simply did not produce what Rule 56 requires. In summary judgment proceedings, [i]f the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the non-moving party [here, the appellants], the party moving for summary judgment may satisfy Rule 56's burden of production [by (1) submitting] affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim [or (2)] demonstrat[ing] to the court that the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (Brennan, J., dissenting). The Government satisfied both of these requirements. Rule 56 further requires that: Once the moving party has attacked whatever record evidenceif anythe nonmoving party purports to rely upon, the burden of production shifts to the nonmoving party, who must either (1) rehabilitate the evidence attacked in the moving party's papers, (2) produce additional evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial as provided in Rule 56(e), or (3) submit an affidavit explaining why further discovery is necessary as provided in Rule 56(f). Id. at 332-33 n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Appellants satisfied none of these requirements. Appellants' arguments that BOP officials must have known that they were violating the Privacy Act, offered to suggest a triable issue of fact on the intent issue, simply cannot carry the day. First, it is uncontested that the photographs that were reviewed and retained by BOP officials were used only for legitimate law enforcement purposes, such as review for signs of gang-related activity. Second, given the complex statutory definition of a system of records and its focus on retrieval by an individual's name or identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5), the retention of unsorted duplicates in a box for a period of months for legitimate law enforcement purposes is not so patently egregious and unlawful that anyone undertaking the conduct should have known it unlawful. Sussman, 494 F.3d at 1122 (quoting Laningham, 813 F.2d at 1242). Third, the Supreme Court has recognized that, although prisoners are not without constitutional rights, prison officials must have the ability to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration. See Jones v. N.C. Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977); see also Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989) (regulations authorizing prison officials to screen and reject objectionable publications addressed to prisoners held to be facially valid); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (regulation of inmate-to-inmate correspondence held to be reasonably related to legitimate security concerns of prison officials). Because the solutions to problems arising within correctional institutions [are] never [] simple or easy, N.C. Prisoners' Union, 433 U.S. at 137, 97 S.Ct. 2532 (Burger, C.J., concurring), it is not surprising that BOP officials assumed that reviewing and retaining photographs served the interests of good prison administration. In this light, the disputed practice does not reveal an agency action committed without grounds for believing it to be lawful. Albright, 732 F.2d at 189. Fourth, there is no evidence that BOP used the duplicate photos outside the prison setting, see Tijerina v. Walters, 821 F.2d 789 (D.C.Cir. 1987), or flagrantly disregard[ed] defendants' rights in any other way. Albright, 732 F.2d at 189. Finally, even after our remand of the case in Maydak I, BOP officials were still never placed on clear notice that their practices violated the Act. Notwithstanding this court's critical discussion of the review and retention policies at FCI Ray Brook, we did not resolve this issue; rather, we remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the prisons' compilation of photos constitutes a system of records. Maydak I, 363 F.3d at 520. It is thus unsurprising that certain BOP facilities continued following established practices until the issue was definitively resolved. In fact, after the remand in Maydak I, the District Court agreed with the Government's position and held that [s]earching through a box or collection of unidentified photos with the hope of recognizing an inmate does not fit the definition [of a system of records] because the photos are not `retrieved' by any `assigned' personal identifier. Maydak II, slip op. at 4, App. 322. This gave further support to the Government that its practices were not unlawful. As our case law makes clear, the Privacy Act's intentional or willful element cannot be satisfied with mere speculation, Albright, 732 F.2d at 190, which is all that appellants have offered in this case. The record in this case is plainly distinguishable from a case like Waters in which the court reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment for the Government. In Waters, the plaintiff sued his employer, the Department of Justice (DOJ), to complain about a letter sent by DOJ to the Pennsylvania Board of Bar Examiners seeking confirmation that Waters had indeed sat for the bar exam. The plaintiff argued that DOJ violated the Privacy Act by failing to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual. 888 F.2d at 872 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(2)). The District Court granted summary judgment to DOJ, persuaded by the agency's proffered evidence that its decision to contact the Pennsylvania Board was based on reasonable doubts as to Waters' veracity. Id. We reversed and remanded, finding that the derogatory tone and content of DOJ's letter and the Pennsylvania Board's refusal to respond without a written demonstration of need for the information raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the agency's intent to act in violation of the Act. Id. at 875-77. Unlike the plaintiff in Waters, the appellants here failed to raise any triable issue of fact on intent. At oral argument, Amici argued that even if appellants failed to proffer evidence in support of their claims that BOP officials acted intentionally or willfully, the case should be remanded because the District Court wrongly stayed discovery and thus prevented appellants from having an opportunity to gather the necessary evidence. This argument fails, for there is nothing in the recordand appellants point us to nothingto indicate that appellants ever sought discovery on the question of whether BOP officials acted intentionally or willfully. Even after the remand in Maydak I, which placed appellants on direct notice that intent would be a necessary element of their Privacy Act claims and that summary judgment would be appropriate if the Government were able to show that BOP did not act intentionally or willfully in violation of the Act, no discovery requests were directed at this question. See Maydak I, 363 F.3d at 521 ([T]his issue [of BOP's intent] is a question of fact entirely undeveloped in the record . . . [and] it provides no basis for summary judgment at this time.  (emphasis added)). Instead, appellants' post- Maydak I discovery requests focused solely on their Trust Fund claims. See Pls.' Mot. to Compel (Aug. 10, 2004) (appending discovery requests); Pls.' Opp. to Defs.' Protective Mot. for Enlargement of Time at 1 (Aug. 10, 2004) (The Court of Appeals specifically remanded the trust fund claims with instructions to allow the plaintiffs discovery.). The District Court's refusal to allow further discovery on the Trust Fund issues cannot excuse appellants' failure to propound any discovery requests related to the Privacy Act's intent question. Therefore, appellants cannot now cite the lack of discovery as a ground to set aside the summary judgement issued in favor of the Government. We therefore affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Government on the intentional or willful issue.