Feldman v. Central Intelligence Agency
797 F. Supp. 2d 29
D.D.C.2011Background
- Feldman was CIA employee detailed to the NRO as Inspector General, with CIA remaining his official employer.
- CIA OIG conducted an investigation into Feldman’s travel reimbursements related to relocation and TDY/TQSE; ROI recommended repayment and administrative actions.
- CIA director imposed a five‑day suspension, issued a reprimand, and reassigned Feldman after the ROI; Feldman challenges as Privacy Act violation and inaccuracies.
- Alleged disclosures include leaks to NRO/CIA employees and a SSCI staffer; plaintiff asserts these were unauthorized and caused harm.
- CIA moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; court schedules discovery on Count I while dismissing Counts II–IV.
- Court recognizes timing of CSRA framework and privacy remedies, allowing discovery on unlawful disclosure claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privacy Act unlawful disclosure sufficiency | Feldman alleges disclosures to unauthorized parties breached the Act. | Disclosures to Congress or via routine uses may be permitted; rumors from independent sources may explain some disclosures. | Count I survives dismissal; discovery permitted for alleged disclosures to NRO/CIA employees. |
| Constitutional scope of disclosures to SSCI staff | Disclosures to SSCI staff were unauthorized and actionable. | Disclosures to congressional oversight are routine uses and not privacy violations. | Disclosures to SSCI staff may be privileged routine uses; claim as to the SSCI staffer dismissed. |
| Retrieval rule applicability to alleged disclosures | ROI/records were retrieved from Privacy Act systems of records and disclosed. | Echoes that some disclosures could derive from independent sources. | Pleading shows plausible retrieval from records; sufficient at dismissal stage to proceed to discovery. |
| Intent/willfulness pleading | Plaintiff pleads intentional or willful conduct by CIA officials. | Conclusions are conclusory without specifics. | Plaintiff adequately alleges intentional/willful conduct at this stage; Count I survives. |
| Counts II–IV viability (inaccuracies) under Privacy Act | ROI inaccuracies harmed Feldman; accuracy violations should be redressed. | Privacy Act does not permit challenge to agency judgments; CSRA governs adverse personnel actions. | Counts II–IV dismissed; accuracy challenges did not show actionable in this posture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (retrieval rule and actual damages required for unlawful disclosure claims)
- Armstrong v. Geithner, 608 F.3d 854 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (pleading sufficiency of 'rumor mill' disclosures; not dispositive on merits)
- Chao v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 540 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2004) (Privacy Act remedies and damages framework)
- York v. McHugh, 698 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2010) (privacy act pleading and discovery considerations)
- Lee v. Geren, 480 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D.D.C. 2007) (CSRA interplay with Privacy Act remedies)
- Cloonan v. Holder, 768 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D.D.C. 2011) (Privacy Act scope and remedial framework)
- Hubbard v. EPA, 809 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (privacy act damages for adverse determinations; causation)