Orduno v. Pietrzak
| Decision Date | 29 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 14-1393 ADM/DTS |
| Parties | Samantha Orduno, Plaintiff, v. Richard Pietrzak, in his individual capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of Dayton; City of Dayton; John and Jane Does (1-120), acting in their individual capacity as supervisors in the City of Dayton, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Sonia L. Miller-Van Oort, Esq., Jonathan A. Strauss, Esq., Lorenz F. Fett, Jr., Esq., and Robin M. Wolpert, Esq., Sapientia Law Group, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN; and Susan M. Holden, Esq., Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Esq., and Marcia K. Miller, Esq., SiebenCarey, Minneapolis, MN on behalf of Plaintiff.
Stephanie A. Angolkar, Esq., Jon K. Iverson, Esq., and Susan M. Tindal, Esq., Iverson Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, MN, on behalf of Defendants Richard Pietrzak and City of Dayton.
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff Samantha Orduno's ("Orduno") Amended Motion to Amend Judgment Under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(a) [Docket No. 259], Motion for a New Trial Under Rule 59(a) [Docket No. 265], and Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under 18 U.S.C. § 2724 [Docket No. 233]. Also before the Court are Defendants City of Dayton ("City of Dayton" or "City") and Richard Pietrzak's ("Pietrzak") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Strike Untimely Motion for New Trial, Untimely "Amended Motion" to Amend Judgment and Untimely Motion for Attorneys' Fees [Docket No. 269], and City of Dayton's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Docket No. 247]. For the reasons set forth below, the Amended Motion to Amend Judgment is granted, the Motion for a New Trial is denied, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted in part and denied in part, the Motion to Strike is denied, and the Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is denied.
This case began as a putative class action under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, et seq. ("DPPA" or the "Act"). Compl. [Docket No. 1] ¶¶ 227-254. The DPPA prohibits "any person" from "knowingly . . . obtain[ing] or disclos[ing] personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for any use not permitted under Section 2721(b) of this title." 18 U.S.C. § 2722. The Act lists numerous permitted uses, including "use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1).
Orduno, the former Dayton City Administrator, alleged that former Dayton Police Chief Pietrzak violated the DPPA by accessing her personal information1 and that of at least 850 other individuals from the Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services database (the "DVS Database") for an impermissible purpose. Compl. ¶¶ 42-53. Orduno further alleged that the City knew of Pietrzak's unlawful accesses, and that the City and its supervisors failed to monitor and prevent the accesses. Id. ¶¶ 54-55, 69-76.
On November 9, 2012, a photocopy of Orduno's paycheck receipt was found in the copy machine in the City's main office while Orduno was on vacation. First Miller Aff., June 22,2015 [Docket No. 37] Ex. A ("Bankes Report") at D245. The photocopy exposed only the corners of the paycheck receipt, and the visible data that appeared in those corners was public data. Id. at D245, D259. Orduno perceived the finding of the photocopy as evidence of a possible data practices violation. She contacted the City Administrator from White Bear Lake, Minnesota to inquire whether White Bear Lake Police Chief Lynne T. Bankes ("Bankes") would conduct a criminal investigation of the incident. Second Miller Aff., Sept. 11, 2015 [Docket No. 49] Ex. 1 ("Bankes Dep.") at 19-21; Orduno Decl., Sept. 11, 2015 [Docket No. 50] ¶¶ 13-14. Orduno and Bankes knew each other from their previous employment with the City of Fridley. Bankes Dep. at 20; First Angolkar Aff., Aug. 5, 2015 [Docket No. 46] Ex. 7 at 1. Bankes was assigned to the investigation, and Orduno provided Bankes with a written account of what she believed had happened. Bankes Report at D245; Bankes Dep. at 19-20, 76-77.
As part of her investigation, Bankes interviewed several City employees. Bankes Report at D246-52. Pietrzak declined to speak with Bankes without an attorney, but contacted his union attorney to arrange for a meeting with Bankes. Id. at D249. The union attorney left a message for Bankes on December 13, 2012, stating that Pietrzak would be available to speak with Bankes after the first of the year. Id. Bankes did not follow up with Pietrzak or his attorney before concluding her investigation. See id. at D255.
During the investigation of the photocopied paycheck receipt, Orduno informed Bankes "that there was an honesty and integrity issue with some City staff," and that she was "concerned that her private personal data was released." Id. at D252. Orduno told Bankes that Pietrzak was her "primary suspect" because he had access to City Hall at any time of the day or night. Id. Orduno also conveyed to Bankes that she felt Pietrzak was "out to get her." Bankes Dep. at 78.
Based on Orduno's concerns and suspicions, Bankes contacted the Minnesota Department of Motor Vehicle Services ("DVS") to determine whether Orduno's driver's license or license plate number had been accessed in the DVS Database by any law enforcement officer in Minnesota. Bankes Report at D252. DVS provided Bankes with a printout showing that Orduno's name had been accessed in the DVS Database 14 times between January 19, 2010 and October 4, 2012. Id. at D252, Ex. A. Seven of the accesses were made by Pietrzak. Id.2 The accesses were not made by entering Orduno's motor vehicle information, which led Bankes to conclude that "the reason for the entry into DVS was not due to a traffic stop violation, but for another reason." Id. at D252. Orduno informed Bankes that she had not been stopped for a traffic violation during that time period and could not think of any reason that officers would have been required to search her name in the DVS Database. Id. Bankes concluded that the accesses were unauthorized and that Pietrzak had violated the DPPA and other statutes. Id. at D253; Bankes Dep. at 59.
Bankes then contacted DVS to request all access data by Pietrzak for the past six months "to see if Chief Pietrzak was only illegally accessing [Orduno's] name and data or if this practice was pervasive." Bankes Report at D253. In response, a DVS support services supervisor sent Bankes an email requesting to deactivate Pietrzak's access because their review of the inquiry was "so disturbing" that DVS planned to discontinue his access. Id. Bankes requested that the access remain open during her investigation. Id. DVS then provided Bankes with a list showing that Pietrzak had accessed information for more than 850 people during the six month periodcovered by the report. Id.
Upon reviewing the list of accesses, Bankes became "immediately concerned" because the list included "numerous" accesses for Pietrzak's family members, City of Dayton's police officers, and the City's police secretary. Id. at D253-54. Pietrzak had also accessed the DVS Database for the Hennepin County sheriff, police chiefs from three other cities, most of Dayton's City Council, members of the City of Dayton's staff, the City of Dayton's past and future mayor, two individuals close to the mayor, a public safety commissioner, and persons from nearby communities who were running or had run for public office. Id. "Many" of those accessed were female. Id. at D254. Additionally, "very few" of the entries on the DVS report were preceded by a license plate entry, indicating the accesses were not likely to have been the result of a traffic stop. Id.
Bankes did not compare the list to an incident report or report of service calls for the City of Dayton police department, nor did she contact any individuals on the list, review the personnel files of the City of Dayton employees on the list, or speak to Pietrzak about the reasons for the accesses. Bankes Dep. at 62, 82-83. Nevertheless, Bankes concluded from her review of the list that "there could reasonably be hundreds of counts of a violation of the law." Bankes Report at D254.
Bankes prepared a report documenting the results of her investigation concerning the photocopied paycheck receipt. See generally Bankes Report. The report concludes that the photocopied data was public data, and that there was "little evidence to criminally charge anyone" with violating Orduno's privacy based on the photocopied paycheck receipt. Id. at D254. However, the report also finds that the "bigger issue [was] the absolute disregard of thelaw by the Police Chief," and that there was "more than sufficient evidence" to bring charges against Pietrzak based on his "illegal" accesses to the DVS Database. Id.
On May 2, 2014, Orduno filed this lawsuit alleging that Pietrzak violated the DPPA when he accessed her personal information and that of approximately 850 other persons for an impermissible purpose, and that the City, through its supervisors, knew of Pietrzak's unlawful accesses and failed to monitor and prevent the accesses. Compl. ¶¶ 42-55, 69-76. Orduno's requested relief included punitive damages for Defendants' "willful or reckless disregard of the law." 18 U.S.C. § 2724.
Pietrzak initially denied the allegations and argued that he accessed Orduno's private data for the permissible law enforcement purpose of investigating whether she was using an alias to hide her true name. First Angolkar Aff. Ex. 4 (Pietrzak Answer Interrogs.) at 8-9.
On October 28, 2014, the Court granted in part a Motion to Dismiss by Defendants, holding that Orduno's claims for accesses occurring before May 2, 2010 were barred by the four year statute of limitations under the DPPA. Mem. Op. & Order, October 28, 2014 [Docket No....
To continue reading
Request your trial