Opinion ID: 793644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Relation Back Doctrine

Text: 45 Oja claims that his Second Amended Complaint is timely because it relates back to the filing of his earlier complaints. Oja argues that the Privacy Act claims in his Second Amended Complaint are timely because they arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence alleged in his earlier complaints, given that the information in the second posting was identical to the information in the first posting; accordingly, Oja avers that his Second Amended Complaint should relate back to the filing date of his earlier complaint under Rule 15(c)(2). 46 After considering the issue, we find that Oja mistakes the meaning of the language of Rule 15(c)(2). Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that 47 An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: 48 . . . 49 (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. . . . 50 The conduct, transaction, or occurrence of which Oja complained in his First Amended Complaint was the USACE's act of disclosing Oja's personal information on its website in November 2000, in violation of the Privacy Act's prohibitions. By contrast, Oja's Second Amended Complaint alleges claims arising from a second disclosure by the USACE on a separate website occurring in December 2000. Nowhere in Oja's First Amended Complaint does he reference a second disclosure on a USACE public affairs site in December 2000, and nowhere has Oja alleged that the disclosure act in December 2000 arose out of the conduct, transmission, or occurrence of the USACE's November 2000 disclosure on the USACE's national site. The Privacy Act states that [n]o agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), and we have determined, supra, that a disclosure occurs when the information is first posted on the Internet. The fact that the language in the two disclosures is identical is inapposite because Oja's claims under the Privacy Act are based on the acts of disclosure themselves, each of which is distinct in time and place, if not substance. 17 Accordingly, and given that the claims made in Oja's Second Amended Complaint are otherwise barred by the statute of limitations, we agree with the district court that Oja's Second Amended Complaint does not relate back to the filing date of Oja's earlier complaint. Our conclusion is consistent with our application of the single publication rule to Internet publication. 18 51