Pavone v. Law Offices of Anthony Mancini, Ltd.
118 F. Supp. 3d 1004
| N.D. Ill. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class, allege the Law Offices of Anthony Mancini, Ltd. obtained Illinois police crash reports containing personal identifying data and used them to send targeted solicitations, violating the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).
- Complaint attached Mancini’s solicitation and a crash report showing the plaintiff’s name, DOB, address, license plate, driver’s license number, and vehicle make/model.
- Mancini moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) crash reports are excluded from the DPPA’s definition of “personal information,” (2) crash reports are not “motor vehicle records,” and (3) its use falls within a DPPA permitted-use exception.
- The court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss standard and evaluated plausibility under Twombly.
- The court concluded information in crash reports can be “personal information,” that such information may have originated from motor vehicle records (and thus be protected), and that the alleged solicitations do not fall within the asserted permitted-use exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether crash reports constitute “personal information” under the DPPA | Crash reports contain personal identifiers (name, license number, address) that are protected | Crash reports are excluded because statute excludes “information on vehicular accidents” | Court: The statutory exclusion covers information about the accident, not personal identifiers in the report; crash-report information can be personal information |
| Whether crash reports are “motor vehicle records” | Personal data in crash reports plausibly derived from DMV records, so DPPA applies | Accident reports are separate police documents and not part of DMV records | Court: Accident reports themselves are not motor vehicle records, but information obtained from motor vehicle records and then included in crash reports is protected; plaintiffs plausibly alleged the information originated from DMV records |
| Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged DMV as the original source of the information | Allegations (on information and belief) and realistic means (officers copying license data or accessing DMV databases) make origin plausible | disputed origin; defendant argued police report provenance defeats DPPA application | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged the information came from the Secretary of State or was copied from driver licenses, satisfying plausibility at pleading stage |
| Whether defendant’s use fits a DPPA permitted-use exception (§ 2721(b)(14) invoked) | Solicitation use is not related to operation of motor vehicles or public safety | Exception covers uses related to motor vehicle operation/public safety because reports are created after accidents | Court: Focus is on the ultimate use; solicitation is not an authorized use under (b)(14) and other exceptions do not apply; dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Parish v. City of Elkhart, 614 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.) (motion-to-dismiss pleading standard guidance)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Dahlstrom v. Sun-Times Media, LLC, 777 F.3d 937 (7th Cir.) (broad interpretation of “personal information” and DPPA purposes)
- Lake v. Neal, 585 F.3d 1059 (7th Cir.) (definition of “motor vehicle record” and “pertains to” analysis)
- Senne v. Village of Palatine, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir.) (information obtained from DMV and later disclosed by police is DPPA-regulated)
- Graczyk v. West Publication Co., 660 F.3d 276 (7th Cir.) (DPPA focuses on ultimate use of disclosed information)
- Maracich v. Spears, 133 S.Ct. 2191 (Supreme Court) (attorney solicitation not covered by litigation-use exception)