Cooper v. Fed. Aviation Admin.

• Decision Date: 22 August 2008
• Docket Number: No. C 07–1383 VRW.,C 07–1383 VRW.
• Citation: 816 F.Supp.2d 778
• Parties: Stanmore Cawthon COOPER, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Social Security Administration and United States Department of Transportation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

816 F.Supp.2d 778

Stanmore Cawthon COOPER, Plaintiff,

v.FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Social Security Administration and United States Department of Transportation, Defendants.

No. C 07–1383 VRW.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Aug. 22, 2008.

James M. Wood, Reed Smith LLP, Oakland, CA, Tiffany Renee Thomas, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Jennifer S. Wang, Michael Thomas Pyle, United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER

VAUGHN R. WALKER, Chief Judge.

A good many laudable public policies collide in the facts at bar. These include policies to ensure the safety of the nation's airways, to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the Social Security system and to secure personal privacy of citizens with a leitmotif of policies against discrimination. None of these policies decides this case. Rather, the court is constrained to apply the express language of the statute under which plaintiff proceeds as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Stanmore Cawthon Cooper alleges violations of the Privacy Act, 5 USC § 552a, in an amended complaint filed on July 10, 2007. Doc. # 26. On April 28, 2008, Cooper moved for partial summary judgment on liability, Doc. # 66, and on May 1, 2008, defendants Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), Social Security Administration (“FAA”) and United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) moved for summary judgment contending that they had no liability to Cooper. Doc. # 100. For the reasons discussed below, the court agrees with the defendants that Cooper's motion for partial summary judgment must be DENIED, and their motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

I

The following facts are not disputed. To operate an aircraft legally, an individual needs a valid airman medical certificate in addition to a pilot certificate. See 14 CFR § 61.3. To obtain a medical airman certificate, an individual must complete FAA Form 8500–8, “Application for an Airman Medical Certificate.” Doc. # 106 at 3, Griswold Decl. at ¶ 6.

Cooper first obtained a pilot's license in 1964. Doc. # 101–2 at 7, Wang Decl., Ex. 1, Cooper Dep. at 25:2–4. In 1985, Cooper learned that he was HIV-positive. Doc. # 101–2 at 3, Wang Decl., Ex. 1, Cooper Dep. at 19:22–23. Even before that, around 1981, Cooper stopped renewing his medical certificate, because he suspected he might be HIV-positive. Doc. # 101–2 at 8–9, Wang Decl., Ex. 1, Cooper Dep. at 30:3–31:13.

Cooper began receiving SSA disability benefits in 1996 due to severe symptoms of HIV infection. Doc. # 101–2 at 4–5, Wang Decl., Ex. 1, Cooper Dep. at 20:8–20, 22:8–22. A copy of Cooper's January 30, 1996 application for disability benefits appears in the record at Doc. # 114–2 at 2–9, Wood Opp. Decl., Ex. 1. Within several months, Cooper's health improved and he discontinued his disability benefits. Doc. # 101–2 at 6, Wang Decl., Ex. 1, Cooper Dep. at 23:6–22.

In 1998, Cooper applied for and obtained a new airman medical certificate, but did so without disclosing his HIV status on the application. Doc. # 91 at 4–5, Cooper Decl. at ¶ 12. Cooper applied to renew his medical certificate in 2000, 2002 and 2004, again omitting from the applications his HIV status and required information about medications he was taking. Doc. # 101–2 at 11–12, Wang Decl., Ex. 1, Cooper Dep. at 33:24–34:12. Copies of the 8500–8 forms for these years appear in the record at Doc. # 101–5 at 2–17, Wang Decl., Ex. 16.

On August 6, 2002, the DOT Office of Inspector General (“DOT–OIG”) proposed a joint investigation, known as Operation Safe Pilot (“OSP”), to the SSA Office of Inspector General (“SSA–OIG”). See Doc. # 102–2 at 2, Stickley Decl., Ex. 1 at SSAIG00021(memorandum proposing OSP). The idea for the investigation came from a 2002 joint investigation of a pilot who had used different doctors to certify medical fitness to fly and to obtain disability benefits. That investigation raised safety concerns within the DOT–OIG that such deception could allow medically unfit pilots to evade detection and endanger the public. Doc. # 103 at 2, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 4.

According to the proposal, the investigation would involve cross-referencing active pilots' social security numbers against databases of SSA disability income and supplemental security income beneficiaries. Doc. # 102–2 at 2, Stickley Decl., Ex. 1 at SSAIG00021. The comparison of data between the agencies was intended to uncover various types of fraud against both agencies:

• Pilots that have submitted false or fraudulent SSNs to the FAA in order to gain a pilot's license.

• Pilots that have altered their name in order to obtain a pilot's license.

• Pilots that are claiming a debilitating condition with the SSA and claim good health to obtain a FAA medical certificate.

• Pilots that have criminal histories which prohibit them from maintaining a pilot's license.

• Pilots that have stolen someone's identity “identity theft” [sic].

• Possible drug smuggling, or pilots that are conducting illegal activity.

Doc. # 102–2 at 2, Stickley Decl., Ex. 1 at SSAIG00021 (emphasis added).

Although initially proposed as a nationwide project, it was approved by DOT–OIG and SSA–OIG as a regional project, limited to northern California. Doc. # 103 at 2, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 5; Doc. # 102 at 2, Stickley Decl. at ¶ 4.

Both DOT–OIG and SSA–OIG considered Privacy Act implications of OSP to some degree. Hank Smedley, DOT–OIG Special Agent in Charge for the region that includes northern California, Doc. # 103 at 2, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 2, discussed the Privacy Act with his colleagues and reviewed the Privacy Act and DOT routine use exceptions to the Privacy Act that DOT argues permitted disclosures of information during OSP. Doc. # 101–3 at 32–37, Wang Decl., Ex. 6, Smedley Dep. at 52:24–53:25, 55:20–56:13, 59:23–60:13. Similarly, SSA–OIG created a set of guidelines for the investigation that it believed would insure the investigation “does not run afoul of the Privacy Act.” Doc. # 102–2 at 8, Stickley Decl., Ex. 2; see also Doc. # 102 at 2, Stickley Decl. at ¶ 5. The SSA–OIG recommended that:

(1) the run be conducted in house;

(2) that we're dealing with DOT–OIG (as opposed to the FAA) and as such are comfortable with their “enforcement” powers;

(3) with respect to SSN misuse, we share information with DOT–OIG only once we open a case, and we have an AUSA considering SSN charges;

(4) with respect to disability fraud, we only share information with DOT–OIG once we've got a basis for opening a case, and we've got an AUSA willing to consider SSA charges'; and

(5) we're not using tax return information in the process.

Doc. # 102–2 at 8, Stickley Decl., Ex. 2.

On or about July 22, 2005, DOT–OIG Special Agent Stephen Jackson requested the names, dates of birth, social security numbers and other identifying information about active certified pilots from the FAA. Doc. # 105 at 2, Smith Decl. at ¶ 4; Doc. # 103 at 3, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 7. The FAA produced a CD containing the requested information and sent it to DOT–OIG Agent Jackson. Doc. # 105 at 2, Smith Decl. at ¶ 4.

With the approval of DOT–OIG Special Agent in Charge Smedley, DOT–OIG Agent Jackson sent the names, social security numbers, dates of birth and gender of approximately 45,000 pilots in northern California to SSA–OIG Special Agent Sandra Johnson on or about November 21, 2003. Doc. # 103 at 3, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 8. This data was then compared against SSA–OIG records by SSA–OIG employee Paul Schmidt. Doc. # 101–3 at 44–48, Wang Decl., Ex. 7, Johnson Dep. at 87:23–91:23.

Around March or April 2004, SSA–OIG Agent Johnson provided DOT–OIG Agent Jackson with three spreadsheets representing SSA–OIG's comparison of the pilot data provided to it by DOT–OIG with the SSA–OIG's records: one spreadsheet compared name and social security number information, another listed active pilots who had received Title II benefits and a third listed active pilots who had received Title XVI benefits. Doc. # 103 at 3, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 9.

Around May 2004—after providing the results of the data analysis to DOT–OIG—SSA–OIG Agent Johnson opened an investigative file for OSP, assigned the case to SSA–OIG Agent Robb Stickley and ceased work on the investigation. Doc. # 101–3 at 17–19, Wang Decl., Ex. 5, Lasher Dep. at 88:21–89:12, 90:9–19; Doc. # 101–3 at 41, 53, Wang Decl., Ex. 7, Johnson Dep. at 21:19–24, 138:8–17; Doc. # 102 at 2, Stickley Decl. at ¶ 3.

SSA–OIG Agent Stickley and DOT–OIG Agent Jackson separately examined the spreadsheets for entries that suggested fraud. Doc. # 102 at 3–4, Stickley Decl. at ¶ 10; Doc. # 103 at 4, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 12. They created individual lists of individuals that they believed merited further investigation. Doc. # 102 at 4, Stickley Decl. at ¶ 11; Doc. # 103 at 4, Jackson Decl. at ¶ 12. Cooper was flagged on SSA–OIG Agent Stickley's list because he was a pilot who had received Title II disability benefits but had certified his fitness to fly. Doc. # 102 at 3–4, Stickley Decl. at ¶¶ 10–11.

Around October 2004, SSA–OIG Agent Stickley requested Cooper's disability file from the SSA. Doc. # 102 at 4, Stickley Decl. at ¶ 12. Around October 26, 2004, after a meeting with SSA–OIG Agent Stickley in which the agents concluded that Cooper merited further investigation, DOT–OIG Agent Jackson requested from the FAA a certified or “blue ribbon” copy of Cooper's medical file. Doc. # 103 at 4, Jackson Decl. at ¶¶ 12–13. SSA–OIG Agent Stickley and DOT–OIG Agent Jackson reviewed Cooper's FFA and SSA records together and discovered that Cooper did not reveal his HIV infection on his FAA medical certificate applications. Doc. # 103 at 4, Stickley Decl. at ¶ 13.

DOT–OIG Agent Jackson and SSA–OIG Agent Stickley met with FAA flight surgeons in January 2005 to determine whether Cooper and others had falsified their FAA medical certificate applications and, if so, whether the falsifications were material to the certification decision. Doc. # 103 at...