Driver's Privacy Protection Act cases
In the wake of McDonough
v. Anoka County, et al., No. 14-1754, et seq., (8th Cir., Aug. 20, 2015),
Minnesota federal district courts have seen several rulings on motions
regarding alleged violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) stemming
from alleged illegal use of the Department of Public Safety’s Driver and
Vehicle Services database (“DVS Database”).
In Meldahl, et al. v.
City of Brooklyn Center, et al., No. 14-4465 (D. Minn., Sept. 30, 2015),
the court dismissed all but two of the plaintiffs’ claims against a variety of
law enforcement agencies, other municipalities, and the Department of Public
Safety (“DPS”).
The court dismissed several of the claims because they were barred
by the applicable four-year statute of limitations affirmed in McDonough. The court also relied on McDonough to dismiss several claims on
the basis that plaintiffs alleged insufficient facts to establish that their
records had been accessed for an improper purpose. All claims against the Commissioner
of DPS and various DPS officials were dismissed because such claims were
materially similar to those previously rejected by the court in Gulsvig v. Mille Lacs Cnty, No. 13-1309 (D. Minn., Mar. 31, 2014). Finally, the court denied the
remaining defendants’ motions that claims against them be severed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), because the court was not yet in a
position to determine if the remaining DPPA violations were independent or
systematic.
In Marquardt v. City
of Blaine, et al., No. 14-2958 (D. Minn., Sept. 30, 2015), the court
dismissed all but one of plaintiff’s DPPA claims because they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations or because the plaintiff failed to establish
a pattern of access that could plausibly conclude her
records had been accessed improperly. Claims against DPS were denied as they
were materially similar to the claims dismissed in Gulsvig.
In Karasov v. Caplan
Law Firm, et al., No. 14-1503 (D. Minn., Oct. 23, 2015), all DPPA claims
against defendants were dismissed on the basis that they were barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
Open Meeting Law
The
Minnesota Film and TV Board asked whether it was subject to Minnesota's Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner opined that the Board is not
subject to the law because it is not a State board, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 1(a).
The Board was not created by the
Legislature; it is a private corporation. Its members and staff are not appointed by
the government and its meetings are governed by the Board’s bylaws.
|
|