Roth v. Guzman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11949
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Ohio DPS/BMV disclosed personal information from drivers’ records in violation of the DPPA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Shadowsoft allegedly obtained a large Ohio driver records database and resold it to PublicData, which publicized the data.
- Defendants conceded BMV disclosed information to Shadowsoft for a purported permissible purpose under DPPA § 2721(b)(3).
- Exhibits attached to the Answer show Shadowsoft’s Form 1173 requests and a Shadowsoft–BMV agreement; many required fields were blank.
- District court held defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on DPPA claims; district court denied motion to dismiss.
- The Fifth Circuit in Taylor and related discussions influenced the interpreting question of bulk versus individual disclosures under § 2721(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2721(b)(3) allows bulk disclosures | Roth argues bulk disclosures are not permitted under § 2721(b)(3). | Guzman/Rankin argue bulk disclosure is permissible under § 2721(b)(3). | Not clearly established; bulk disclosures not clearly barred at the time. |
| Whether a state official can be liable when disclosure is for a purported permissible purpose but used for impermissible ends | Disclosures for a permissible purpose but later misused violate the DPPA. | Disclosures for a permissible purpose do not violate the DPPA even if later misused by others. | Not clearly established that such liability existed; district court reversed on immunity grounds. |
| Whether the DPPA imposes a duty of reasonable inquiry on state officials | Officials must verify the requester’s legitimacy and purpose; failure breaches DPPA. | No duty to verify beyond accepting representations; reliance on requester’s statements is enough. | Not clearly established that reasonable-inquiry duty applied as of the conduct here. |
| Whether the district court properly concluded that the DPPA right was clearly established | DPPA text clearly prohibits disclosing for impermissible purposes. | No clearly established right given the unsettled law on bulk/stockpiling disclosures. | Right not clearly established; immunity applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (objective reasonableness standard for rights clarity)
- Risbridger v. Connelly, 275 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2002) (preexisting law for clearly established rights)
- Collier v. Dickinson, 477 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (DPPA rights clarified for express consent in bulk disclosures)
- Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) (stockpiling versus individual/bulk disclosures under DPPA § 2721(b)(3))
- Welch v. Theodorides-Bustle, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (DPPA bulk-disclosure issues with unspecified purpose)
- Kehoe v. Fid. Bank & Trust, 421 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2005) (DPPA consent and enforcement issues post-amendments)
- Pichler v. UNITE, 228 F.R.D. 230 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (knowledge requirement and DPPA protections)