Opinion ID: 718314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Henke's Litigation

Text: 14 In December, 1992, Wanda Henke and her husband Robert filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, for all information in the possession of the ATP program relating to Dynamic, Wanda Henke, or Robert Henke. The ATP refused to disclose the confidential technical and business reviews in Dynamic's files under FOIA, citing its deliberative process and personal privacy exemptions--an issue which is not the subject of this appeal. In addition, the ATP refused to disclose the information under the Privacy Act, claiming that the computer databases did not constitute a system of records for purposes of the Act, because it did not in practice use the computer system to retrieve information about Wanda or Robert Henke which was indexed by either of their names. The Henkes then filed a Privacy Act claim in the district [317 U.S.App.D.C. 411] court. 8 15 After allowing limited discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Henke, finding that the ATP did in fact maintain a system of records ... with respect to Wanda Henke and that the information she was seeking either pertains to her or, in the alternative, is her 'record.'  Mem. op. at 3-4. As the district court put it, the goals of the Privacy Act would be frustrated if the ATP were maintaining inaccurate information about Henke, yet she could not get access to that information. The district court expressed concern that the ATP's approach could also result in an anomaly wherein Privacy Act rights wax or wane depending on whether an agency happens to be employing, at any particular moment, its existing computer capability to retrieve records through the names of individuals. Mem. op. at 11-12. 16 Thus, the court rejected as immaterial the ATP's assertion that it did not in practice retrieve information about individuals by using a contact person's name, finding instead that an agency's existing capability to retrieve information by reference to an individual's name creates a 'system of records.'  Mem. op. at 7 (emphasis added). Finding the text of the Privacy Act inconclusive on what constitutes a system of records, the court turned to the legislative history, in which it said it found no support for the ATP's restrictive approach. Mem. op. at 11. 9 Accordingly, the court ordered the ATP to disclose the confidential peer reviews.