UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
DONNELL HURT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1167 (RBW)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT )
SERVICES AND OFFENDER )
SUPERVISION AGENCY et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
(“CSOSA”) moves for partial reconsideration of the Order of May 5, 2009, granting in part and
denying in part its motion to dismiss this case brought under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a
(2000). Finding the need to correct a clear error, the Court will grant the motion, vacate the
Order in part and dismiss this case.
Motions for reconsideration are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and
may be granted upon a showing of “an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of
new evidence or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone v.
Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996). CSOSA asserts that the Court erroneously
determined that the plaintiff could maintain a damages claim predicated on the Privacy Act’s
improper disclosure provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). See Memorandum Opinion (“Mem. Op.”) of
May 5, 2009 at 5 (finding exemption of Supervision Offender Case Files from certain Privacy
Act requirements inapplicable to the improper disclosure provision). As the defendant correctly
argues, the Court based that determination on 28 C.F.R. § 802.28(b)(1)-exempting Office of
Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) records-when it should have applied § 802.28(a)(1)-
exempting Supervision Offender Case Files. See Mem. Op. at 5 (discussing exempted record
systems).
Unlike subsection (b), which exempts OPR records from the Privacy Act’s damages
provision (subsection (g)) “to the extent that [they are] exempt from the access and amendment
provisions of subsection (d)[,]” 28 C.F.R. § 802.28(b)(2)(ix), subsection (a) has no such
restriction. The plaintiff therefore cannot recover monetary damages for an improper disclosure
because CSOSA has wholly exempted the Supervision Offender Case Files from subsection (g).
See Mem. Op. at 5 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 802.28(a)(1)). As to the remaining improper disclosure
claim, then, the Court finds that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.1
________s/________________
Reggie B. Walton
Date: June 8, 2009 United States District Judge
1
A final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
2