Funk v. O’Connor, et al., No. 10-CV-14-547 (First
Judicial District, Carver County, Mar. 31, 2016)
A group of citizens sued four members of the Victoria
City Council for violations of the Open Meeting Law (OML). The judge found
38 intentional violations, including serial meetings, improper notice, and
improperly closed meetings. The judge stated that for an intentional violation
to occur, a public body member must only have the intent to attend and
participate in the meeting. The judge concluded, “Good faith is not a
defense to a violation of the Open Meeting Law” and that public body members are
presumed to know the law’s requirements. Individual city council members were fined
in amounts between $1,200 and $2,250. The judge also found that the public body itself
was liable for the failure to: post notice, record closed meetings, and
properly close meetings. However, the City was not a named defendant,
so the judge could not impose a fine. The judge concluded by stating, “An
overhaul of the [Open Meeting Law] statute should be seriously considered by
the Legislature."
Plaintiff alleged violations of the Minnesota and United
States Constitutions based on the Township’s denial of access to government
information. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
district court, granting summary judgment to the Township. Plaintiff argued
that the Township generally allows individuals to view and copy public information,
but the Township targeted Plaintiff specifically to prevent him from viewing
and photocopying information. The Court held that there is no private cause of
action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution and further held that Plaintiff
did not have any common-law rights enforceable under the Minnesota
Constitution. The Court also held that Plaintiff did not have a First Amendment
right to access any data that was not “publically available as a general matter.”
The fact that the Township had provided Plaintiff and others the opportunity to
view some public information did not mean that Township had created a First
Amendment right to access all information.
Sapp v. City of
Baudette, et al., No. 15-CV-1589 (D. Minn. Mar. 28, 2016)
The Court denied Defendant Brooklyn Park’s motion to
dismiss claims under the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act
(DPAA). In particular, Plaintiff established that he had a previous relationship
with a member of the Brooklyn Park Police Department (BPPD) and that a BPPD
lieutenant was aware that said employee had accessed Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
wife’s records in the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) database multiple
times. Those facts, along with a suspicious pattern of DVS database lookups
that suggested they had been done by the same person, were sufficient to raise
the likelihood that plaintiff’s records were accessed for an impermissible
purpose from “conceivable” to “plausible” and so BPPD’s motion to dismiss was
denied.
As to other defendants, the Court granted Defendant White Bear Lake’s motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim due to a lack of sufficient facts. The court also granted several other motions to dismiss on the
basis that the DPPA claims were time-barred and because state agency
Commissioners are protected by qualified immunity.
Weitgenant v. Patten et al., No. 14-CV-255 (D. Minn. Apr. 12, 2016)
Plaintiff sued a multi-county social services agency
(Agency), several Agency employees, including the Responsible Authority (RA),
and three counties served by the Agency for alleged violations of the federal DPPA
and Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
The DPPA direct liability claims were dismissed because the
DPPA does not establish a duty of care by an employer and the Plaintiff failed
to allege that the Defendants in question had “knowingly” given the employee
Defendants access to the DVS database “for a purpose not permitted” under the
DPPA. The DPPA claims for vicarious liability for the actions of the employees
and RA were likewise dismissed because “Imposing [vicarious] liability here,
where the violations resulted from willful employee misconduct despite proper
training and where the data was not publicly disseminated, would result in
strict liability…”
The Data Practices Act claims for direct
liability against the Agency and the counties were dismissed because Minnesota law allows for disclosure as required under the DPPA. Claims of vicarious liability for the rank-and-file
employees’ improper access were also dismissed because the employees’ improper
accessing of the private data was not related to their employment and because
the Agency did not benefit from the improper access. Vicarious liability claims
under the Data Practices Act for the RA’s “fail[ure] to establish appropriate
security safeguards, procedures, and other measures to prevent misuse…” of DVS
records were dismissed because there was no evidence that the RA knew of the
impermissible access. In addition, the Data Practices
Act’s requirement to establish such safeguards was not
added until 2014, three years after the alleged violations occurred.
Webster v. Hennepin Cnty. et al., No. 5-0305-33135 (OAH, Apr. 22,
2016)
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that Hennepin
County violated several provisions of the Data Practices Act relating to
its response to a data request by Plaintiff to inspect public data. The County declined
to provide Plaintiff with an unknown quantity of responsive data because his
request was unreasonably burdensome and would monopolize Hennepin County’s
servers for 15 months. The ALJ held that the Act does not recognize “burden” as
a basis to deny access to public government data, and concluded that the County
had violated the Act on the following bases: 1) failing to establish procedures
to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in
an appropriate and prompt manner; 2) failing to maintain government data in
such a way as to make them easily accessible for convenient use; 3) failing to
permit Plaintiff to inspect and copy public data; and 4) failing to timely
inform Plaintiff of the legal citations for the County’s denial of access to
the requested data. The ALJ ordered
Hennepin County to remedy the above violations by June 3, 2016, and imposed a
civil penalty against the county in the amount of $300.
Save the Date!
June 17, 2016: Introduction to Data Practices Policies and Procedures Workshop
Save the date for IPAD's Intro to
Data Practices Policies and Procedures workshop. This half-day workshop will
provide an overview of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and
required policies. This workshop
is a perfect opportunity for those employees new to a job that requires a basic
understanding of Minnesota data practices law and is also a great chance for
those familiar with data practices to refresh their knowledge, share their
thoughts, and ask questions. IPAD recommends that anyone considering enrollment
in one of our more advanced workshops on law enforcement or personnel data first
attend this workshop.
June 29, 2016: Law Enforcement Data Workshop
In addition, save the date for IPAD’s summer offering of its Law Enforcement Data workshop. This full-day
workshop provides an overview of classifications and requirements regarding law
enforcement data and other statutes relating to juvenile
delinquency data and traffic accidents. Because
this is a specialized workshop, IPAD recommends that attendees without prior
experience working with law enforcement data first attend IPAD’s Intro
to Data Practices workshop before enrolling in this
workshop.
|
|