Lucas v. Moore

• Decision Date: 12 September 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:18-cv-582
• Citation: Lucas v. Moore, 412 F.Supp.3d 749 (S.D. Ohio 2019)
• Parties: Vincent LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. Tricia MOORE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

412 F.Supp.3d 749

Vincent LUCAS, Plaintiff,

v.Tricia MOORE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-582

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Filed September 12, 2019

Vincent Lucas, Amelia, OH, pro se.

D. Patrick Kasson, Thomas N. Spyker, Reminger Co., LPA, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

Vincent Lucas("Plaintiff"), proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this action under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721 et seq., against Tricia Moore("Moore"), Marcia J. Phelps("Phelps"), and the City of Newark, Ohio ("the City")(collectively, "Defendants").¹Plaintiff moved for summary judgment against Phelps, ECF No. 16, and Phelps cross-moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against her, ECF No. 22.Moore and the City also moved for summary judgment, ECF No. 45, and Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on his claims against both, ECF Nos. 48, 49.For the following reasons, the CourtDENIESPlaintiff's motions for summary judgment and GRANTSDefendants' motions for summary judgment.

Finally, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend his Complaint, ECF No. 36.For reasons explained below, the CourtDENIES that motion as well.

I.FACTS

On July 4, 2014, Plaintiff was charged with a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.Compl.¶ 5, ECF No. 1.Plaintiff contested the violation, and the case went to trial.The present case stems from information about Plaintiff that was posted to the Municipal Court's public docket related to his criminal traffic case.For ease of readability, the Court discusses below the pertinent facts and the basis for Plaintiff's claims against Phelps and Moore separately.

A. Phelps

Plaintiff's traffic ticket, as are all traffic tickets issued in Licking County, was filed with the Clerk of Court at the Licking County Municipal Court("Municipal Court") for further processing.Phelps Aff. 1–2, ECFNo. 22-2.Phelps, as Clerk of Court, then entered data from Plaintiff's traffic ticket—including his name, address, and date of birth—into the Municipal Court's case management system.That data became part of Plaintiff's online, publicly viewable case docket on the Municipal Court's website.Id. at 1.

The Municipal Court states that it maintains the online docket for the benefit of the public, "so a defendant can access their case file, make payments, see hearing dates, or obtain other information about the case."Id.Individuals may search for a case docket using an offender's name, address, date of birth, license plate number, or traffic ticket number.Ex. F., ECFNo. 16-3.A vehicle's license plate number is not displayed on the public docket; but an individual's name, address, and date of birth are displayed on the public docket.Phelps Aff. 2, ECFNo. 22-2;Ex. E, ECFNo. 16-2.Phelps acknowledges that she, as Clerk of Court, "determines [the] information that will be accessible on the [Municipal Court's] website."Interrogatories 5, ECFNo. 16-6.

Plaintiff brings this action against Phelps, alleging that by making his personal information publicly available through the Municipal Court's website, she violated the DPPA, a statute that regulates disclosure of an individual's personal information stored in a state motor vehicle record.See generallyCompl., ECF No. 1.He seeks damages and injunctive relief against Phelps and the City of Newark as Phelps's employer.Id. at 7–8.

B. Moore

Plaintiff's traffic case was prosecuted by Tricia Moore, assistant Law Director for the City of Newark.MooreDep. 9:7–10, ECF No. 41;LucasDep. 26:23–24, ECF No. 44.During the course of proceedings, Plaintiff requested discovery.Compl.2, ECF No. 1.In response, Moore produced discovery to Plaintiff and filed a copy of her discovery response with the Municipal Court.MooreDep. 37:1–19, ECF No. 41.The discovery documents contained a one-page copy of Plaintiff's motor vehicle record setting forth Plaintiff's history of traffic violations.Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. J.(Sealed).That record also contained Plaintiff's personal identifiers, including his Social Security Number ("SSN"), date of birth, and other personal information.Id.The discovery documents, including the motor vehicle record, were not filed under seal, and Plaintiff's personal information was not redacted from the filing.MooreDep. 35:8–9, ECF No. 41; Compl.5, ECF No. 1.

On the day of trial, Plaintiff moved to dismiss his traffic citation, in part, because Moore, according to Plaintiff, had intentionally withheld evidence.Phelps's Cross Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C, ECFNo. 22-3, PageID ## 162–68.In support of the motion Plaintiff filed a copy of the produced discovery, which contained the same unredacted copy of Plaintiff's motor vehicle record that was originally filed by Moore. MooreDep. 93:10–94:6, ECF No. 41.The Municipal Court denied the motion to dismiss, and the case continued to trial.Ultimately, Plaintiff was convicted.SeeState v. Vincent Lucas , 14TRD0765-A(unpublished)(upheld on appeal).

Years later, Plaintiff realized that the discovery documents in his traffic case were unredacted, unsealed, and thus available to the public.Compl.2, ECF No. 1.He found that out when he went to the Municipal Courts Clerk's Office and requested to see a copy of his complete file.Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. 2–3, ECF No. 48.Upon receiving a copy of his file with Moore's unredacted discovery disclosure included,²Plaintiff commenced the present lawsuit. id.

Plaintiff contends that when Moore filed an unredacted, unsealed copy of Plaintiff's motor vehicle record with the Municipal Court, she disclosed Plaintiff's personal information to the public in violation of the DPPA.See generallyCompl., ECF No. 1.He seeks damages and injunctive relief against Moore and the City of Newark as Moore's employer.Id. at 7–8.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

A party is entitled to summary judgment if he or she"shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [he or she] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).When reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dep't of Children and Family Servs. , 640 F.3d 716, 723(6th Cir.2011).Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is genuine, "that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986);Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp. , 556 F.3d 502, 511(6th Cir.2009).Thus, the central issue is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law."Pittman , 640 F.3d at 723(quotingAnderson , 477 U.S. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ).

The standard of review for cross motions for summary judgment does not differ from the standard applied when a motion is filed by one party to the litigation.Taft Broad. Co. v. United States , 929 F.2d 240, 248(6th Cir.1991).Each party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.The fact that one party fails to satisfy that burden does not indicate that the opposing party is entitled to summary judgment on its motion.Rather, courts"evaluate each motion on its own merits and view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."Hensley v. Gassman , 693 F.3d 681, 686(6th Cir.2012)(quotingWiley v. United States , 20 F.3d 222, 224(6th Cir.1994) ).

III.ANALYSIS

The DPPA "regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments."Reno v. Condon , 528 U.S. 141, 143, 120 S.Ct. 666, 145 L.Ed.2d 587(2000).It prohibits a state department of motor vehicles ("DMV") from "knowingly disclos[ing] or otherwise mak[ing] available to any person or entity ... personal information" or "highly restricted personal information ... obtained by the [DMV] in connection with a motor vehicle record," unless the disclosure is made for a specific purpose permitted by the statute.18 U.S.C. § 2721(a).And the DPPA prohibits "authorized recipient[s] of personal information" from reselling or redisclosing the information for a use not permitted by the statute.Id.§ 2721(c).The statute creates a private right of action against any "person who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted" by the statute.Id.§ 2724(a).

Under the DPPA, "personal information" is defined as any "information that identifies an individual, including an individual's photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver's status."Id.§ 2725(3)."Highly restricted personal information" means "an individual's photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability information[.]"Id.§ 2725(4).

The statute lists fourteen permissible purposes for which personal information in a motor vehicle record may be disclosed, obtained, or used.Id.§ 2721(b).Two permissible purposes are relevant here:

(1) For use by any governmental agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions.

...

(4) For use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency ... including the service of process, investigation in anticipation of litigation, and the

...