657 F.Supp.3d 769
M.D.N.C.2023Background:
- Plaintiffs (news organizations and law firms) sued the Town of Chapel Hill seeking a declaration and injunctive relief that North Carolina law enforcement agencies may release unredacted motor-vehicle accident reports (names and addresses) under state public-records law.
- CHPD accident reports (DMV-349s) are populated using data pulled from the North Carolina DMV database; parties agree the personal information in CHPD reports originates from NCDMV records.
- In March 2021 CHPD changed practice to provide only redacted “public copies” (removing DPPA-defined personal information) unless a requester demonstrates a DPPA-authorized purpose; CHPD says similar policy existed since 2012.
- The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) prohibits knowingly obtaining, disclosing, or using personal information from a “motor vehicle record” except under enumerated exceptions; an authorized recipient may not redisclose such information except for permitted uses.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction; Town moved cross-summary judgment. The court considered DPPA statutory interpretation and precedent (not reaching First Amendment claims).
- The district court denied Plaintiffs’ summary judgment, granted Defendant’s summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ surreply request, and denied the preliminary injunction as moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPPA bars LEAs from releasing unredacted accident reports containing personal info derived from DMV records | DPPA is custodian-specific and restricts only DMVs; LEAs releasing public records need not satisfy DPPA exceptions | DPPA bars redisclosure by authorized recipients when information was obtained from a DMV; CHPD must comply with DPPA limits | Held for Defendant: DPPA restricts redisclosure; CHPD’s redaction/exception policy complies with DPPA |
| Whether responding to public-records requests is a §2721(b)(1) government-agency function that permits disclosure | Release in response to public-records law is a government function and thus allowed under DPPA exception | Permitting public dissemination defeats DPPA’s purpose; public disclosure to private parties is not the §2721(b)(1) exception | Held for Defendant: public dissemination is not a DPPA governmental-function exception |
| Whether North Carolina public-records law requires disclosure despite DPPA | NCPRA mandates public access to accident reports; state law controls release | Federal DPPA governs and preempts conflicting state public-records law | Court relied on DPPA preemption principle and resolved case on federal DPPA grounds in favor of Defendant; did not need to resolve full NCPRA question |
| Procedural: Plaintiffs’ ancillary motions (surreply, preliminary injunction) | Sought leave to file surreply and sought preliminary injunctive relief | Opposed surreply as unnecessary; asked court to deny injunction if summary judgment granted | Surreply denied; preliminary injunction denied as moot after judgment for Defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (DPPA regulates resale and redisclosure of DMV-sourced personal information)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (2013) (legislative history highlights Congress’ concern with DMV disclosure and direct-marketing resale)
- Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C., 35 F.4th 917 (4th Cir. 2022) (DPPA liability requires obtaining information from a motor-vehicle record; defendants who merely obtain information not directly from DMV may not be liable)
- Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., 483 F. Supp. 3d 318 (W.D.N.C. 2020) (accident reports containing DMV-derived personal information are subject to DPPA; public-records status does not override DPPA)
- Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019) (cases cabining DPPA’s reach to interactions with DMVs)
- Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t of Public Safety v. United States, 161 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1998) (federal DPPA preempts contrary state law)