Cloonan v. Holder
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22993
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Sheila Cloonan, a USMS employee, sues alleging a Privacy Act violation by her former supervisor David Barnes and agency defendants.
- Stein Letter, prepared by Barnes with attorney Stein, purportedly disseminated information from Cloonan’s USMS records to several officials.
- Cloonan had a history of complaints involving Barnes, with prior investigations and disputes affecting her employment actions including voluntary demotion.
- The Stein Letter was sent October 22, 2007 and targeted U.S. Marshals Service officials; it referenced plaintiff’s employment record and alleged documented events.
- Initial procedural posture included Rule 12(b)(6) and later summary judgment motions; Judge Kennedy previously addressed defamation claims, narrowing remaining Privacy Act issues to disclosures.
- Court ultimately permits the Privacy Act claim to proceed against the DOJ as proper defendant, while Barnes is dismissed in his individual capacity; Bartel exception found inapplicable on record and issues of retrieval remain for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOJ/USMS is proper defendant under the Privacy Act | Cloonan named USMS/DOJ; USMS is an agency subject to Act | Privacy Act limits suits to cabinet-level agencies | DOJ properly substituted; USMS as agency also proper; Barnes dismissed individually |
| Whether the retrieval rule applies to the Stein Letter | Stein Letter implies retrieval from Cloonan’s records | No retrieval from records; information from non-record sources | Bartel exception inapplicable; genuine issue of material fact as to retrieval remains |
| Whether the Bartel retrieval exception applies to this case | Bartel exception should apply because info derived from record-related role | Bartel narrowly limited; no primary role in creating/using records by Barnes | Bartel exception inapplicable on the current record |
| Whether there is a genuine issue of fact on retrieval | Stein Letter’s language and specificity show retrieval from files | Declarations negate retrieval; evidence is self-serving | There is a genuine issue of material fact on retrieval for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartel v. FAA, 725 F.2d 1403 (D.C.Cir.1984) (retrieval rule and Bartel exception for unusual disclosures)
- Doe v. Treasury, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.2009) (retrieval evidence may be circumstantial; protections of Privacy Act)
- Armstrong v. Geithner, 608 F.3d 854 (D.C.Cir.2010) ( Bartel exception narrowly interpreted; not broadening retrieval exception)
- Krieger v. DOJ, 529 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C.2008) (retrieval/record-source considerations; Bartel limits)
- Doe v. USPS, 317 F.3d 339 (D.C.Cir.2003) (retrieval evidence and privacy protections; disclosure circumstantial)
- Pilon v. DOJ, 73 F.3d 1111 (D.C.Cir.1996) ( Privacy Act disclosure limits; reliance on record evidence)
- Mulhern v. Gates, 525 F. Supp.2d 174 (D.D.C.2007) (Bartel exception context and retrieval rule)