ISPLA DPPA Litigation Alert
- Below is an important class action litigation matter in which ISPLA will be
actively involved --- Marcy A. Johnson v. West Publishing Company On August
9, U.S. District Court Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the Western District
Court of Missouri, Central Division, ordered that the Motion to Certify
Class filed by plaintiff Marcy Johnson as putative class representative be
granted. This litigation poses potential threats to some of our
investigative and security professionals handling matters in the states
listed below. A trial has been scheduled for September 26.
18 U.S.C. § 2721(b). The DPPA creates a federal, civil cause of action for
any individual to whom the information pertains against a violator of the
statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a).
Johnsons Complaint sets forth three Counts. Count I asserts a violation of
the DPPA: Defendant knowingly obtained, disclosed, and/or sold Plaintiffs
and the putative Class members personal information or highly restricted
personal information, as defined by the DPPA, for a use or uses not
permitted under the statute.
Count I prays for damages. Count II asserts a claim for unjust enrichment
and seeks disgorgement. Finally, Count III asserts a claim for injunctive
relief, based on DPPA violations.
On May 11, 2010, the Court granted Wests Motion to Dismiss Count II of
Johnsons Complaint. Johnson then moved for certification of the following
All persons who registered a motor vehicle in, or were issued a drivers
license or state identification card by, the States of Alabama, Alaska,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming and the District of Columbia,
whose personal information or highly restricted personal information, as
defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 2725(3) and (4), was obtained, disclosed, or sold by
Defendant, or any agent, officer, employee, or contractor of Defendant
between February 19, 2006 and the date of final judgment in this matter (the
Class). The Class excludes Defendants directors, officers, parent
corporations, subsidiaries, and affiliates.
Some of you may have come across recent posts commenting about a
professional association designating ISPLA as a competing organization.
That association, as a part of its recent legislative fund-raising campaign,
is creating the PI Cook Book and promoting a traveling PI Museum on Wheels.
It has been billed as the PIMOW 50/50 Deal. We wish both organizations
well in their efforts to raise the publics view of our profession -- but
please know that ISPLA is there protecting your interests in DC full-time.
Not to stir the pot too much, but failure to address this DPPA issue by my
colleagues would be a recipe for disaster.
We are all volunteers, but we do incur costs to maintain our live real-time
federal and state legislative tracking system and in filing periodically
required IRS and Federal Election reports in connection with ISPLA-PAC. So
if you really care about having continuing professional representation in
Washington and elsewhere, please consider supporting ISPLA. Thank you.
A link to Judge Laughrey's ruling may be found at:
ISPLA Director of Government Affairs
To join us and support the ongoing work of ISPLA please go to www.ISPLA.org