Karasov v. Caplan Law Firm, P.A., Case No. 14–cv–1503 SRN/BRT.

• Decision Date: 03 February 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14–cv–1503 SRN/BRT.
• Citation: 84 F.Supp.3d 886
• Parties: Patricia Mae Kerr KARASOV, Plaintiff, v. CAPLAN LAW FIRM, P.A. ; City of Bloomington; City of Brooklyn Center; City of Brooklyn Park; City of Burnsville ; City of Dayton; Earl Street Auto Sales ; City of Eden Prairie; City of Edina; Freeborn County; City of Golden Valley; Hennepin County; City of Hopkins; Lake Area Police Department; City of Maple Grove ; Metropolitan Council; Mille Lacs County ; City of Minneapolis; City of Monticello; City of Plymouth, City of Prior Lake; Ramsey County; Rice County; City of Richfield; City of Roseville; City of St. Louis Park; City of St. Paul; Stearns County; Steele County; Washington County; City of Wayzata ; Michael Campion, in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; Ramona Dohman, in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; John and Jane Does (1–300) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other governmental agencies; Department of Public Safety Does (1–30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1–50) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

84 F.Supp.3d 886

Patricia Mae Kerr KARASOV, Plaintiff
v.
CAPLAN LAW FIRM, P.A. ; City of Bloomington; City of Brooklyn Center; City of Brooklyn Park; City of Burnsville ; City of Dayton; Earl Street Auto Sales ; City of Eden Prairie; City of Edina; Freeborn County; City of Golden Valley; Hennepin County; City of Hopkins; Lake Area Police Department; City of Maple Grove ; Metropolitan Council; Mille Lacs County ; City of Minneapolis; City of Monticello; City of Plymouth, City of Prior Lake; Ramsey County; Rice County; City of Richfield; City of Roseville; City of St. Louis Park; City of St. Paul; Stearns County; Steele County; Washington County; City of Wayzata ; Michael Campion, in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; Ramona Dohman, in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; John and Jane Does (1–300) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other governmental agencies; Department of Public Safety Does (1–30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1–50) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota, Defendants.

Case No. 14–cv–1503 SRN/BRT.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed Feb. 3, 2015.

84 F.Supp.3d 889

Lorenz F. Fett, Jr., Sonia L. Miller–Van Oort, and Jonathan A. Strauss, Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.

Adam R. Strauss and William R. Skolnick, Skolnick & Schiff, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant Caplan Law Firm, P.A.

Jon K. Iverson, Stephanie A. Angolkar, and Susan M. Tindal, Iverson Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, MN, for Defendants City of Bloomington, City of Brooklyn Center, City of Brooklyn Park, City of Burnsville, City of Dayton, City of Eden

84 F.Supp.3d 890

Prairie, City of Golden Valley, City of Hopkins, Lakes Area Police Department, City of Maple Grove, City of Monticello, City of Plymouth, City of Prior Lake, City of Richfield, City of Roseville, City of St. Louis Park, and City of Wayzata.

Mark P. Hodkinson, Bassford Remele, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant City of Edina.

Margaret A. Skelton, Timothy A. Sullivan, and Erin E. Benson, Ratwik Roszak & Maloney, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants Freeborn County, Mille Lacs County, Rice County, Stearns County, Steele County, and Washington County.

Toni A. Beitz, Beth A. Stack, and Daniel D. Kaczor, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant Hennepin County.

Daniel L. Abelson, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant Metropolitan Council.

Tracey N. Fussy, Minneapolis City Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant City of Minneapolis.

C. David Dietz, Kinberly R. Parker, and Robert B. Roche, Ramsey County Attorney's Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant Ramsey County.

Adam M. Niblick, Saint Paul City Attorney's Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant City of St. Paul.

Oliver J. Larson, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants Michael Campion and Ramona Dohman.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Hennepin County's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Sever [Doc. No. 27]; (2) Defendant City of St. Paul's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 32]; (3) Defendant City of Minneapolis' Motion to Dismiss or for Severance [Doc. No. 37]; (4) Defendant Metropolitan Council's Motion to Dismiss or to Sever [Doc. No. 46]; (5) Defendants City of Bloomington, City of Brooklyn Center, City of Brooklyn Park, City of Burnsville, City of Dayton, City of Eden Prairie, City of Golden Valley, City of Hopkins, City of Maple Grove, City of Monticello, City of Plymouth, City of Prior Lake, City of Richfield, City of Roseville, City of St. Louis Park, City of Wayzata, and Lakes Area Police Department's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Sever [Doc. No. 57]; (6) Defendants Freeborn County, Mille Lacs County, Rice County, Stearns County, Steele County, and Washington County's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Sever [Doc. No. 63]; (7) Defendant Ramsey County's Motion to Dismiss or for Severance [Doc. No. 67]; (8) Defendant City of Edina's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or to Sever [Doc. No. 83]; and (9) Defendant Commissioners Ramona Dohman and Michael Campion's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 73]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part these motions.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Patricia Mae Kerr Karasov (“Plaintiff” or “Karasov”) filed this action on May 13, 2014, against the municipal, county, and individual Defendants listed above. (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1].) Plaintiff asserts a single claim in her Complaint against all Defendants (“Count I”). In Count I, Plaintiff states a claim under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., against all Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 331–53.)

Plaintiff's claims are centered on allegations that law enforcement personnel viewed her private driver's license information in the Minnesota Department of Vehicle Services (“DVS”) driver's license

84 F.Supp.3d 891

database and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database [collectively “DPS database”] without a legitimate purpose. (See id. ¶¶ 1–3.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that law enforcement personnel may have accessed her personal information for purely personal reasons because of their interest in her prior role as a Hennepin County District Court Judge. (See id. ¶¶ 43–175.) Karasov served as a Hennepin County District Court Judge from 1995 until 2013, when she retired. (Id. ¶ 24.)

Plaintiff alleges that during her tenure as a state court judge, she was the subject of an investigation initiated by the judicial branch of the State of Minnesota, because although state court judges are required to reside within the county for which they serve, Karasov “allegedly resid[ed] outside of Hennepin County.” (Id. ¶¶ 25, 28.) The investigation took place from 2010 through 2011. (Id. ) As a result of this investigation, a “widely publicized disciplinary proceeding” took place in “early January 2011.” (Id. ¶ 26.) On November 16, 2011, at the conclusion of this proceeding, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that Karasov had committed judicial misconduct by residing outside of Hennepin County, while she served as a Hennepin County judge. (Id. ¶ 27.) Karasov was subsequently “censured and suspended without pay for six months.” (Id. )

In 2013, Plaintiff contacted Kim Jacobson at the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) and requested an audit of the number of times her name was run on the DPS database. (Id. ¶ 266.) On April 16, 2013, Jacobson provided the results of the audit to Karasov. (Id. ¶ 268.) Karasov alleges that she learned from the audit results that officers from various departments and agencies accessed her driver's license information over 200 times between 2003 and 2011. (Id. ¶ 270; see Compl., Ex. A. [Doc. No. 1–1].) Karasov claims that the audit results “severely disturbed” her, and “she had the feeling [that] she was being stalked.” (Compl. ¶ 271 [Doc. No. 1].) Plaintiff was particularly upset to “learn that users from different agencies were obtaining her records on the same day and times, indicating some sort of discussion or other concert of activity about her between different agencies.” (Id. ¶ 273.)

For example, “the officers from the City of Dayton and Stearns County obtained Karasov's private data [allegedly] within one hour of each other on January 4, 2011. [Additionally,] [o]n the same day, officers from the City of Minneapolis also obtained her data.” (Id. ¶ 181.) On January 5, 2011, “[o]fficers from Otter Tail County, [the City of] Dayton, Ramsey County, the Department of Natural Resources [“DNR”], [the City of] Burnsville, and [the City of] Minneapolis also [allegedly] obtained her information.” (Id. ¶ 182.) On January 6, 2011, “officers from [the City of] St. Paul, Steele County, [the City of] Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and Freeborn County all [allegedly] obtained Karasov's information.” (Id. ¶ 183.) This apparent concert of activity began as early as 2010. On October 13, 2010 “officers from the Cit [ies] of Roseville and Minneapolis [allegedly] obtained her data. [And] [o]n October 7, [2010] officers from the City of Minneapolis and the DNR also [allegedly] obtained her data.” (Id. ¶ 186.)

The chart below itemizes the number of lookups allegedly made by each Defendant for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA:

Entity Number of times accessed

Caplan Law Firm 1 (id. ¶ 43.)

...