Opinion ID: 2981143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On January 10, 2010, Plaintiffs instituted a proposed class action lawsuit against numerous defendants. Plaintiffs sought protection from, and the recovery of statutory damages for, each defendant’s allegedly unlawful obtainment, use and/or disclosure of Plaintiffs’ protected personal information contained in the motor vehicle records of the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Transportation Cabinet (hereinafter, the “K.T.C.”). Over the course of the next year, Plaintiffs filed numerous complaints against an ever-evolving list of defendants, numerous motions to dismiss were filed and numerous defendants were dismissed for a variety of reasons. Ultimately, the district court approved Plaintiffs’ motion to file a third amended complaint on December 3, 2010, and Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint the same day. The Third Amended Complaint contained allegations against Defendant and each of the defendants set forth in footnote 1, supra. Plaintiffs alleged, in relevant part, the following: 17. Defendants’ [sic] obtained the K.T.C. Database, and continued updates thereto, in violation of relevant state and federal laws[,] including certain provisions and protections afforded to each and every Kentucky resident by the 2 An amicus brief in support of allowing bulk disclosures under the DPPA was filed by The Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the principle of open public records access, and The Consumer Data Industry Association, an international trade association. -2- No. 11-5342 Wiles v. Ascom [DPPA]. More specifically, the Defendants knowingly obtained Plaintiffs’ protected personal information outside of any of the requisite permissible purposes enumerated by the DPPA and in violation of Plaintiffs’ privacy rights. Moreover, each Defendant . . . misrepresented to the K.T.C. that they [sic] had a permissible purpose for each and every record and as to the personal information of each and every person therein when they [sic] did not. Defendants knew that they had (and know they have) no permissible purpose for each and every private personal record but obtained them regardless.