Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corporation
228 F. Supp. 3d 28
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Lamb applied in Nov 2015 for an MCC personal‑services contractor position through Sawdey; he began work in Feb 2016 but was removed and terminated on April 18, 2016 after an unfavorable background/suitability determination.
- The background investigation was conducted in part by the State Department (via contractor/employee George Chiamulera) and in part by MCC; State transmitted materials to MCC on March 28, 2016.
- Lamb requested his records under FOIA and the Privacy Act on April 21, 2016; MCC assigned a FOIA request number but did not separately respond under the Privacy Act at that time.
- Lamb sued alleging: (1) MCC denied access to records (FOIA/Privacy Act); (2) Chiamulera improperly disseminated protected records (Privacy Act); and (3) failure to ensure accuracy of records (Privacy Act).
- The Court dismissed all claims as to Chiamulera (individuals are not liable under FOIA/Privacy Act), denied summary judgment to MCC on the FOIA/Privacy Act disclosure claim because of an unexplained inconsistency about a State Department "Report of Investigation," and sua sponte dismissed several Privacy Act counts against MCC for failure to plead dissemination outside an agency or sufficient facts.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part Lamb’s motion to amend: allowed several new due‑process and FOIA/Privacy Act production claims (including a new claim against State Department for nonresponse), but denied leave for claims found futile (e.g., individual liability under FOIA/Privacy Act, constitutional Bivens claims, common‑law torts against federal employees without FTCA exhaustion, certain discrimination claims). Motion for appointment of counsel denied; procedural pre‑motion conference requirements imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual (Chiamulera) can be sued under FOIA/Privacy Act | Lamb sought records and relief against Chiamulera for disclosure and accuracy violations | Defendants: FOIA and the Privacy Act govern agencies, not individuals | Dismissed: individuals not subject to suit under FOIA/Privacy Act (claims against Chiamulera dismissed) |
| Adequacy of MCC FOIA/Privacy Act search / whether all responsive records were produced | Lamb contends MCC failed to produce at least one responsive State Dept. "Report of Investigation" | MCC says it produced five responsive records and mailed them to Lamb; DOJ/MCC rely on declarations and mailing receipts | Denied MCC summary judgment on disclosure claim; court ordered further explanation about whether Report of Investigation exists/was produced; denied Lamb's cross‑MSJ |
| Whether Privacy Act §552a(e)(6) and dissemination/accuracy claims stated against MCC/State/individuals | Lamb alleges improper dissemination and failure to ensure accuracy before dissemination | Defendants: §552a(e)(6) applies only when records are disseminated outside agencies; individuals are not proper defendants; many claims lack factual detail | Dismissed/sua sponte: claims under §552a(e)(6) futile as pleaded (no allegation of dissemination outside agency or factual detail); dismissed Counts Two and Three against MCC |
| Whether to permit proposed amendments adding constitutional, tort, discrimination, and administrative claims | Lamb sought to add many claims and defendants (State, individual MCC officials), including due‑process and discrimination counts | MCC/DOJ argued many claims are futile, barred (sovereign immunity, Bivens precluded, FTCA exhaustion needed), and lack facts | Court granted leave in part (allowed certain FOIA/Privacy Act production claims against MCC and State, and due‑process claims re: removal), denied leave for claims that would be futile (individual FOIA/Privacy Act liability, Bivens constitutional claims, common‑law torts without FTCA exhaustion, discrimination counts without exhaustion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir.) (Privacy Act and FOIA impose obligations on agencies, not individuals)
- Oglesby v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must show good‑faith, reasonably calculated search in FOIA cases)
- Valencia‑Lucena v. United States Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir.) (standard for adequacy of FOIA search: ‘‘beyond material doubt’')
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.) (adequacy of search judged by methods used; court may weigh missing documents)
- Founding Church of Scientology v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must provide a sufficiently detailed search affidavit; court may require more exhaustive account)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading requires plausible factual matter, not mere conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plaintiff must give fair notice of claim and grounds)
- Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir.) (Privacy Act/FOIA remedial schemes preclude a Bivens remedy)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity bars Bivens‑style suits against the United States for constitutional torts)
- Legille v. Dann, 544 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (presumption of regularity applies to official mailings)