514 F.Supp.3d 784
M.D.N.C.2021Background
- Six plaintiffs were involved in 2016 car accidents; officers completed standard DMV-349 accident reports using information on plaintiffs’ driver’s licenses (hand-copying, manual entry, typing license number, or barcode scanning) and often confirmed the address with the driver.
- In the weeks after the accidents plaintiffs received unsolicited attorney marketing that used their names and addresses derived from those DMV-349 reports.
- Defendants obtained the information either by collecting DMV-349 reports from law enforcement or by purchasing aggregated crash-report data from third parties; plaintiffs do not allege defendants purchased data directly from the state DMV or that DMV-349s are "motor vehicle records" under the DPPA.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), alleging unauthorized acquisition and use of personal information, and asserted a supplemental claim under North Carolina’s Uniform Voidable Transfers Act (UVTA) against two defendants.
- The Court resolved motions to strike two expert declarations (Rhonda Harper and Victoria Nourse) and multiple cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obtaining names/addresses from DMV-349s and using them for attorney solicitations violates the DPPA | The information on DMV-349s traces back to DMV motor-vehicle records and thus is protected by the DPPA | DPPA protects only information obtained from a state DMV; defendants did not obtain data from DMV records | Held for defendants: DPPA does not cover information obtained from DMV-349s or otherwise not acquired from a state DMV |
| Motion to strike Rhonda Harper declaration under Rule 26 | Harper’s declaration expands beyond her disclosed expert topics and was not fully disclosed | Harper reserved right to supplement; her additions contextualize voluminous new discovery | Denied — Court found supplement was justified/harmless under Southern States factors |
| Motion to strike Victoria Nourse declaration under Rule 702 | Nourse impermissibly offers legal conclusions and interprets the DPPA | Nourse provides methodical summary of legislative history and congressional records | Granted in part: struck portions that advance statutory interpretation or apply law; remainder admissible |
| UVTA claim against Andrews-Lanier defendants (fraudulent/voidable transfer) | Lanier transferred assets without reasonably equivalent value to avoid potential DPPA judgment | No DPPA liability; no basis for UVTA relief | Denied as moot for plaintiffs/subsidiary claim dismissed — summary judgment for defendants (UVTA claim fails because DPPA claim fails) |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2000) (DPPA regulates resale/redisclosure of personal information by private parties when obtained from a state DMV)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2013) (legislative history: DPPA motivated by stalker/criminal risks and state sale of DMV data to marketers)
- Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019) (DPPA does not reach personal information obtained from a license in the possessor’s hands rather than from a DMV)
- Kehoe v. Fid. Fed. Bank & Tr., 421 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment for plaintiffs when defendant purchased data directly from state DMV)
- Whitaker v. Appriss, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (N.D. Ind. 2017) (district court initially suggested a broad view but granted summary judgment holding driver’s license handed to an actor is not a DPPA-protected motor-vehicle record)
- S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) (five-factor test for assessing prejudice/surprise in expert disclosure Rule 26/37 context)