205 F.Supp.3d 961
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- On Jan. 15, 2015, Pavone was in a car accident; a Schaumburg police officer inspected his driver’s license and returned a police crash report that included Pavone’s name, address, DOB, phone, and driver’s license number.
- Attorney Anthony Mancini purchased the crash report from iyeTek, solicited Pavone by mail using that report, and enclosed a copy of the crash report in the solicitation.
- Pavone sued under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), alleging Mancini knowingly obtained and used his personal information from a motor vehicle record for an impermissible purpose (solicitation).
- Mancini moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) crash reports are not motor vehicle records, he did not obtain information from the DMV, he did not act knowingly, state law permits disclosure, the DPPA violates the First Amendment, and Pavone lacks Article III standing after Spokeo.
- The court denied summary judgment but ordered further briefing limited to the standing issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether information was "personal information" under DPPA | Pavone: crash report data (name, address, DOB, phone, license #) is personal information | Mancini: Some items not covered or irrelevant | Held: Data qualifies as DPPA "personal information" |
| Whether data was "from a motor vehicle record" | Pavone: info on crash report ultimately derives from DMV records | Mancini: crash report is not a motor vehicle record and he didn’t obtain records from DMV | Held: Even if the report is not a DMV record, info that originates from DMV (including driver's license) is protected; information from a driver’s license is a motor vehicle record |
| Whether Mancini acted "knowingly" (mens rea) | Pavone: Mancini knew the source and nature of the data | Mancini: lacked knowledge that data came from a motor vehicle record | Held: Jury could infer Mancini knew the driver’s license number came from a motor vehicle record, but not the other data; knowledge element satisfied only as to the license number |
| Whether Mancini’s purpose was permitted by DPPA | Pavone: solicitation is impermissible use | Mancini: lawful because police obtained it for a permitted purpose or state law permits disclosure | Held: Solicitation is not a permitted use; legality of police’s collection or state law disclosure does not excuse defendant’s impermissible use |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Senne v. Village of Palatine, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir.) (materials derived from DMV records fall under DPPA)
- Dahlstrom v. Sun–Times Media, LLC, 777 F.3d 937 (7th Cir.) (broad interpretation of DPPA personal-information protection; rational-basis review of access restrictions)
- Lake v. Neal, 585 F.3d 1059 (7th Cir.) (what "pertains to" a motor vehicle record)
- Graczyk v. West Publishing Co., 660 F.3d 275 (7th Cir.) (focus on ultimate use of DMV-derived information)
- Maracich v. Spears, 133 S. Ct. 2191 (Supreme Court) (attorney solicitation using DMV-derived data not permitted)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (Supreme Court) (Congress may regulate states’ disclosure of DMV information)
- KM Enterprises, Inc. v. Global Traffic Technologies, Inc., 725 F.3d 718 (7th Cir.) (avoid statutory interpretations producing absurd results)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Supreme Court) (Article III standing requires concrete injury)