Sussman v. United States Marshals Service
808 F. Supp. 2d 192
D.D.C.2011Background
- Sussman sues USMS under FOIA and Privacy Act alleging improper withholding and improper disclosures.
- Most FOIA/Privacy Act claims were previously decided in Defendant's favor; remaining live are Count I (FOIA), Count III and VII (Privacy Act).
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on remaining counts; Plaintiff cross-moved on Count III.
- USMS conducted threat investigations and possesses Plaintiff-related records; some materials appear in Keith Maydak’s records, who used Plaintiff’s name as an alias.
- Key issue is whether disclosures between USMS and FBI were intra-agency within DOJ, and whether disclosures to the public or to third parties were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intra-agency disclosure and accounting | Disclosures to FBI were improper and not properly accounted for. | USMS/FBI disclosures are intra-agency need-to-know within DOJ; no accounting required. | Disclosures are intra-agency; no accounting needed; Count III granted for Defendant. |
| DOJ perspective for intra-agency analysis | DOJ-wide perspective should not treat USMS and FBI as a single agency. | DOJ perspective is appropriate; components may be treated as single for intra-agency disclosures. | DOJ-wide perspective applied; disclosures permitted. |
| Disclosure to the public and record-related privacy | Defendant violated Privacy Act by disclosing to Chrissy’s News and disclosed information from Plaintiff’s records. | Disclosures either predate record creation or originate from Maydak’s record; not actionable; also may be intra-agency within DOJ. | Material facts exist; summary judgment denied on Count VII. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sussman v. United States Marshals Service, 494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (privacy act/foia interplay; agency status and intra-agency disclosures)
- Doe v. Department of Justice, 660 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (need-to-know disclosures within DOJ)