Crummey v. Social Security Administration
794 F. Supp. 2d 46
D.D.C.2011Background
- Crummey contends the SSA created a Trust when it issued him an SSN/ SSC; he drafted a Trust Agreement reflecting this theory.
- Crummey asked the SSA to amend Master Files to add or reflect the Trust Agreement; SSA denied or did not respond.
- Crummey asserted multiple requests for access to records, including his original SSN application, SSC, and Trust Agreement; SSA produced some records (Sept. 2010) and additional copies (Sept. 2010).
- SSA argued Crummey’s Trust theory is baseless and that Master Files concern true identity, not Trusts; Master Files do not include the Trust Agreement.
- Crummey filed suit under the Privacy Act and FOIA alleging failure to amend records and improper denial of access; SSA moved for summary judgment.
- Court granted SSA summary judgment, denying Crummey’s amendment requests and finding access requests moot because all responsive records were produced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crummey’s amendment requests relate to a Master File record | Crummey seeks to add the Trust Agreement to Master Files | No Master File record corresponds to the Trust Agreement | Crummey fails to show a related Master File record exists |
| Whether SSA records are accurate and complete under Privacy Act | SSA records are inaccurate/incomplete due to Trust notion | Records accurately reflect true identity; Trust not applicable | SSA entitled to summary judgment on amendment claim |
| Whether the Trust Agreement information corresponds to a Master File item | Trust Agreement information should be in Master Files | Trust details do not correspond to any Master File data element | No amendment required; no corresponding Master File item |
| Whether Crummey’s access requests are moot | Crummey needs copies not yet provided | SSA already produced all responsive records | Access claims moot; no relief available |
| Whether Crummey’s Second Motion for Judicial Notice surpluses relevant grounds | Requests to consider additional authorities | Arguments are irrelevant to core issues | Denied to extent it seeks to supplement opposition; granted-in-part for materials already considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 584 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Privacy Act amendment standard; de novo review on denial)
- Doe v. United States, 821 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (En banc consideration for Privacy Act matters)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (Material facts; summary judgment standard)
- Iturralde v. Currencies, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Adequacy of search for records; standard for summary judgment)
- Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Agency production sufficiency; not all documents must be found)
- Grove v. Dep't of Justice, 802 F.Supp.2d 506 (D.D.C. 1992) (Legibility of records; production standard)
- Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 844 F.Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1993) (Legibility; typical remedy considerations for production)