The exception for routine use ”was developed to allow for anything other than disclosure within the Agency”; Consequently, `[i]t is not necessary … Inclusion of intra-agency transfers in the part of the notification of the system covering common uses. »; OMB Guidelines of 1975, 40 Fed. Reg. to 56,742 (4 December 1975), www.justice. Gov/paoverview_omb-75-supp But see O`Donnell v. DOD, No. 04-00101, 2006 WL 166531, at *8 n.8 (E.D. Pa. January 20, 2006) (upon request for rejection, agreeing with the applicant that ”routine use” should be defined as ”disclosure of a document outside the [DOD]”, and stating that ”the exception for `routine use` expressly states that disclosure is permitted `for routine use within the meaning of paragraph (a)(7) of the [Act]`); see Shayesteh v. Raty, No. 02:05-CV-85TC, 2007 WL 2317435, at *5 (D.
Utah Aug. 7, 2007) (conclude that the information referred to in paragraph (b)(1) was accurate and indicated that the subject matter of the disclosures was consistent with the purpose of the investigation referred to in paragraph (b)(3)). Similarly, the courts have found that when an individual applies for a benefit, program or position, an organization may disclose information as a consistent common use during the application process. Puerta v. HHS, No. 99-55497, 2000 WL 863974, at *1-2 (9th Cir. 28 June 2000) (concluding that the common use exception allowed for disclosure of the applicant`s grant proposal to a qualified expert, who was a member of the peer review panel for the evaluation of the proposal), aff`g No. EDCV 94-0148, Schlupf op. cit. 7 (C.D. Cal.
5 January 1999); Budik v. United States, 949 F.Supp.2d 14, 29 (D.D.C March 7, 2013) (with the conclusion that the disclosure by the United States Military of the Applicant`s Military Performance Evaluation Form for Medical Personnel was consistent with the use for which it was collected, ”namely, to `manage the credentials and privileges of health care providers in the military health care system`”), aff`d, 2013 WL 6222903 (D.C. Cir. 19 November 2013); Reed v Navy, 910 F. Supp. 2d 32, 42-43 (D.D.C. 2012) (The determination of the disclosures made during the investigation of the allegations against the plaintiff and its veracity with respect to those allegations for the purpose of assessing the applicant`s suitability to serve as a police officer was part of the defendant`s routine use for the ”request for information”, with records being forwarded to federal, state and local authorities, if necessary to assess the applicant`s fitness for service); Doe v. DOJ, 660 F. Supp. 2d 31, 47-48 (D.D.C. 2009) (discussion of the disclosure to the National Unemployment Commission and the contractor of information on the employee`s mental state collected for the purpose of coordinating his or her request for reasonable accommodation, in order to determine the employee`s entitlement to benefits); Benham v.
Rice, No. 0301127, 2005 WL 691871, at *5-6 (D.D.C March 24, 2005) (Discussion of the disclosure of the request for the transfer of an agency employee to AUSA who had represented the agency in a previous employee discrimination lawsuit against the agency so that AUSA can ”attempt to resolve the ongoing dispute with [the employee]”); Fattahi v. ATF, 186 F. Supp. 2d 656, 661-64 (E.D. Va. 2002) (Discussion on disclosure of the fact that the applicant had applied to the condominium corporation`s counsel for a federal firearms licence to determine whether the firearms dealer could operate from the applicant`s specific housing unit), Aff`d, 328 F.3d 176, 181 (4th Cir. 2003) (according to the District Court, ”that the routine use of the ATF must be `practically read`, so that disclosures are consistent with common use when they are `reasonably necessary to verify the relevant information, [and] not only where verification is not otherwise possible`); Mom vs. Work, 150 F. Supp. 2d 162, 174 (D. Me.
2001) (Disclosure to the Agency`s investigating physician from an investigation file detailing possible health care fraud by former government employees who were screened for eligibility for continued disability), Aff`d, No. 01-2256 (1 Cir. 12 June 2002); Blazy v Tenet, 979 F. Supp. 10, 26 (D.D.C. 1997) (Discussion of cia disclosure of employee information to the FBI while the FBI was investigating an employee`s request for employment at the FBI), grants summary confirmation, No. 97-5330, 1998 WL 315583 (D.C. Cir. 12 May 1998); Magee v.
USPS, 903 F. Supp. 1022, 1029 (W.D. La. 1995) (discussion on the disclosure of the employee`s medical records to a clinical psychologist mandated by the agency to conduct a formal examination of the employee), aff`d, 79 F.3d 1145 (5th Cir. 1996) (table decision not published); McNeill v. IRS, No. 93-2204, 1995 Dist. LEXIS 2372, at *6 (D.D.C February 7, 1995) (Discussion on the disclosure of IRS personnel records to potential employers of the Federal Agency); but cf.
Brunotte v. Johnson, 892 F. Supp. 2d 199, 207 (D.D.C. 2012) (Conclude ”unclear in current records” whether the disclosure of the applicant`s alleged ”travel reimbursement violations” to the prospective employer to ”see if [p]laintiff committed any other fraud by submitting false information on the application” was ”consistent with the purpose for which the information was collected”). The general rule under the Data Protection Act is that an agency cannot disclose a document contained in a registration system unless the person to whom the document relates gives their prior written consent to the disclosure. There are twelve exceptions to this general rule. The cases are replete with examples of appropriate ”need-to-know” disclosures within authorities.
By far, the most common disclosure of the ”need to know” that the courts have deemed appropriate is to investigate alleged employee misconduct or disciplinary decisions. See e.B. Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 529-31 (10th Cir. 1997) (deals with the disclosure of the identity of the person under investigation by the supervisor to employees assisting in the investigation and actions of the agency`s lawyer defending the agency in a related MSPB case against another person); Mount v. USPS, 79 F.3d 531, 533-34 (6th Cir. 1996) (discussion of the disclosure of information in the applicant`s medical records to other employees ”having responsibility for employment and/or disciplinary decisions with respect to the applicant”; ”Given the questions about the applicant`s psychological stability, everyone had at least a questionable need to access the information contained in the applicant`s medical records. »); Undercover against Harrington, 876 F.2d 751, 753-54 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussion of the disclosure of safety questionnaires to the Inspector General for the purpose of detecting fraud); Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 354-55 (Cir. 9, 1988) (discussion of the disclosure of a letter suspending physician clinical privileges to peer review participants); Lukos v. IRS, No.
86-1100, 1987 WL 36354, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 1987) (discussion of the disclosure of the employee`s arrest record to the supervisor for the purpose of assessing his or her behaviour and exercising disciplinary measures); Howard v. Marsh, 785 F.2d 645, 647-49 (8th Cir. 1986) (discussion of the disclosure of the employee`s personal records to the agency`s lawyer and human resources specialist for the purpose of preparing the response to complaints of discrimination); Hernández v. Alexander, 671 F.2d 402, 410 (10th Cir. 1982) (discussion of the disclosure of the employee`s eEO records to recruitment consultants to determine whether personal action should be taken against the employee); Grogan v. IRS, 3 Gov`t Disclosure Serv. . . .