United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided: June 3, 2014.
For Michelle Mary Ray, Plaintiff: Jonathan A Strauss, LEAD ATTORNEY, Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Mpls, MN; Lorenz F Fett, Jr, Sonia L Miller-Van Oort, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Kenneth H Fukuda, Sapientia Law Group, Mpls, MN.
For Big Lake, City of, Ramsey, City of, Osseo, City of, Maple Grove, City of, Elk River, City of, Corcoran, City of, Champlin, City of, Burnsville, City of, Brooklyn Park, City of, Brooklyn Center, City of, Bloomington, City of, Defendants: Jon K Iverson, Stephanie A Angolkar, Susan M Tindal, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Iverson Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, MN.
For Hennepin County, Defendant: Toni A Beitz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hennepin County Attorney's Office - A2000, Mpls, MN; Beth A Stack, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Mpls, MN; Daniel D Kaczor, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN.
For Minneapolis, City of, Defendant: Kristin R. Sarff, LEAD ATTORNEY, Minneapolis City Attorney's Office, Mpls, MN.
For Sherburne County, Defendant: Erin E Benson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney PA, Mpls, MN; Timothy A Sullivan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, PA, Mpls, MN; Margaret A Skelton, Ratwik Roszak & Maloney, Mpls, MN.
For 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, Defendants: Oliver J Larson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Minnesota Attorney General's Office - Ste 1800, St Paul, MN.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Court Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and/or to Sever. For the reasons that follow, the Motions to Dismiss are granted and the Motions to Sever are denied as moot.
Plaintiff Michelle Ray alleges that Defendants  illegally accessed her driver's
license information approximately 440 times between 2003 and 2103 without a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Ray believes that her ex-husband, a retired law enforcement officer, and his friends and former colleagues have been accessing her private information in order to " check up on her." (Id. ¶ ¶ 42-45.) Ray provides no specific facts in support of this allegation.
The Driver and Vehicle Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains a database of Minnesota drivers' motor vehicle records, which includes each licensed driver's name, date of birth, driver's license number, address, photograph, weight, height, eye color, social security number, and certain health and disability information. (Id. ¶ ¶ 46-47.) The database includes current and past data for each licensed driver. (Id. ¶ 47.) All of this information was available each of the alleged 440 times someone accessed Ray's records.
DPS provided an audit to Ray showing each date and time her driver's license data was accessed by an Unknown Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 52, Ex. A.) The DPS audit shows that Ray's data was accessed 66 times between 2003 and 2013 by various, but not all, Defendants and three entities not named in this suit. (Id.) The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension also performed an audit, which Ray contends demonstrates that the City Defendants, County Defendants, and Unknown Defendants accessed her data nearly 400 times during the same period. (Id. ¶ 107, Ex. B.) It is far from clear that each instance identified by Ray qualifies as a separate acquisition of her data. For example, the BCA audit indicates that on July 3, 2010, someone in the Anoka County Sheriff's Office accessed Ray's data. (Id. Ex. B at 64-65.) The record for this date includes ten separate entries that Ray construes as ten distinct access points. (Id.) The record also shows, however, that five seconds elapsed between the first and tenth entries, indicating that her data was accessed once, not ten separate times. It therefore appears that Ray's numbers are significantly inflated.
Ray asserts that each acquisition of her data must have been unauthorized and improper because she has never been " charged with or suspected of committing a crime in [any of the City or County Defendants' jurisdictions], has never been involved in any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in or involving [any City or County Defendant], and [that] there was no legitimate reason for [her] to have been the subject of any investigation by [any City or County Defendant]." (Id. ¶ ¶ 61, 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 93, 97, 101, 105, 120, 140, 144.) ...