Senne v. Village of Palatine
6 F. Supp. 3d 786
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Senne sued the Village of Palatine alleging DPPA violations from printing personal information on parking tickets.
- Ticket issued Aug 19-20, 2010 displayed Senne’s name, driver’s license number, date of birth, sex, height, weight, and license plate, plus an alternate address.
- Officer Christians testified he placed the ticket face down; portions of the data were obscured on some copies.
- Senne claimed the Village disclosed personal information by placing it on a public windshield; the Village argued the information was not disclosed or not in plain view.
- The district court dismissed; Seventh Circuit vacated and, en banc, reversed on disclosure and DPPA interpretation in favor of Senne; later district court granted summary judgment for Village.
- This opinion grants summary judgment for the Village, concluding disclosures and uses fall within DPPA § 2721(b)(1) as a permissible government-use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placing a ticket on a windshield constitutes a disclosure | Senne argues disclosure occurred regardless of visibility. | Village contends no disclosure occurred since no one saw the data. | Yes, disclosure occurred. |
| Whether the disclosed information was used for a DPPA § 2721(b) permissible purpose | Uses were not shown; declaration relies on § 2721(c) analyses. | Established uses fit within § 2721(b) permissible purposes. | Uses are sufficient under § 2721(b)(1). |
| Whether the Village forfeited new § 2721(b) arguments at summary judgment | Village failed to raise new arguments earlier; should be waived. | Courts allow development of fact questions and arguments on summary judgment. | No forfeiture; arguments appropriately considered. |
| Whether § 2721(b) permits bulk or ultimate uses rather than immediate use | Some argued that no immediate use is required. | Village claimed immediate, direct use for DPPA purposes. | Ultimate or potential use suffices under DPPA § 2721(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Senne v. Village of Palatine, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2012) (disclosure by placing on windshield triggered DPPA coverage; uses must be for permissible purposes)
- Graczyk v. West Publ’g Co., 660 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 2011) (DPPA’s ultimate use concept; bulk acquisition permissible for later permitted uses)
- Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2010) (bulk purchase for permissible use not a DPPA violation if no prohibited use occurs)
- Cook v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., 663 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2011) (DPPA does not require immediate use; permissible purpose can be fulfilled later)
- Welch v. Jones, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (N.D. Fla. 2011) (umbrella analogy; obtaining for potential future use is permissible under DPPA)