Samantha Orduno v. Richard Pietrzak, 932 F.3d 710

Background

Samantha Orduno, Dayton city administrator, discovered a photocopy of her paycheck receipt in City Hall in 2012 and investigated possible privacy breaches.
Investigation showed Dayton Police Chief Richard Pietrzak queried Minnesota DMV records for Orduno and many others; Pietrzak admitted six impermissible queries within the limitations period.
Orduno sued under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), naming Pietrzak, the City of Dayton, and others; district court dismissed some claims and denied class certification.
Before trial Pietrzak admitted liability for six obtainments; jury awarded Orduno $85,000 punitive damages and the court added $15,000 liquidated damages but no actual damages.
District court held City not directly liable under the DPPA but potentially vicariously liable; it excluded evidence of time‑barred and nonparty obtainments and of the City’s disciplinary response.
The court reduced Orduno’s requested attorneys’ fees for overstaffing/excessive billing and denied costs for a forensic expert; both sides appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) should have been granted	Orduno: common issues predominate because Pietrzak’s on‑duty name searches were uniform misconduct	City: individual inquiries into purpose of each search defeat predominance and numerosity	Denied; predominance fails because each putative member would require fact‑specific inquiry into Pietrzak’s purpose (fail‑safe class problems also)
Whether City is directly liable under the DPPA	Orduno: City authorized/acquiesced in access and policymaker status of chief makes City liable	City: no evidence it knowingly obtained/used records for impermissible purposes; chief’s personal misuse not City policy	Denied; insufficient evidence City knowingly acted for an impermissible purpose and chief’s personal acts are not municipal policy
Whether City is vicariously liable for Pietrzak’s violations	Orduno: City should be liable because chief used official position to access records	City: DPPA liability should rest solely on the accessor, not principal	Affirmed; DPPA incorporates background tort vicarious‑liability principles in civil context, and chief was ‘‘aided by’’ his position so City may be vicariously liable
Admissibility of other-obtainment evidence and recovery of fees/costs	Orduno: evidence of other obtainments and City’s post‑report conduct relevant to damages; expert costs were reasonable litigation expenses	City: other obtainments/time‑barred incidents and post‑report conduct unduly prejudicial/irrelevant; statutory limits preclude expert witness costs	Affirmed exclusion of other obtainments and City‑response evidence as unfairly prejudicial; fee award reduction for overstaffing/limited success upheld; denial of expert costs upheld under federal cost statutes

Key Cases Cited

Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. MedTox Sci., Inc., 821 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for class‑certification decisions)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (U.S. 2013) (Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (U.S. 2016) (discussion of common vs. individual issues in predominance inquiry)
Loeffler v. City of Anoka, 893 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2018) (elements to establish a DPPA violation)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability and policy/practice standards)
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2003) (Congress presumed to legislate against background tort vicarious‑liability rules)
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (agency principles that bind principals for agents’ acts)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and reductions for limited success/excessive hours)
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1987) (limits on taxation of expert witness fees as costs)