Opinion ID: 494572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maintenance of Unnecessary Record

Text: 9 Reuber's most basic contention is that HHS violated Section 552a(e)(1) of the Privacy Act by keeping copies of the reprimand letter in its NCI records. 28 This section provides that each agency subject to the Act shall maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a legitimate agency purpose. 29 Reuber believes that NCI had no justifiable interest in such a personal letter of reprimand, since [t]he hiring, discipline and supervision of Litton employees was the responsibility of Litton, not the NCI. 30 Reuber further asserts that Litton's contract with NCI proscribed disclosure of the letter, and thus precluded any rightful interest of NCI. 31 10 The District Court granted summary judgment for HHS on this claim, 32 and we deem its decision perfectly sound. Litton was an important government contractor, and the controversy generated by Reuber, a Litton employee, enmeshed NCI in a scientific debate over the carcinogenicity of malathion and the reliability of NCI bioassays. Given NCI's unquestionable need to ensure public confidence in its work and to avoid public association with Reuber's private dissenting views, some assurance from Litton that the problem had been addressed and would not recur was certainly required. The reprimand letter was an excellent means of demonstrating to NCI Litton's awareness of the delicate circumstances and its commitment to better in-house discipline. We cannot say that retention of this information on file at NCI was irrelevant or unnecessary to a valid agency purpose. 11 Moreover, the contract between Litton and NCI did not prohibit communication to NCI of personnel decisions directly affecting it. Insofar as this contract bears on the controversy, it contained only a standard prescribed clause providing that confidential information ... of a personal nature about an individual could not be disclosed without the individual's consent. 33 Although the relevant HHS regulations indicate that this prohibition includes data ... generated by the contractor, 34 the intent of these regulations is to foreclose premature public dissemination by contractors of sensitive studies or research. 35 There is nothing in the administrative record to indicate that this clause was designed to prevent release to the contracting governmental agency of information important to it. 36 Indeed, the regulations specifically call for prior governmental approval when distribution of certain information is contemplated by the contractor. 37 The contract provision upon which Reuber relies in this connection simply does not cover Litton's disclosure to HHS of personnel decisions directly affecting the agency.