DOE et al v. United States of America

Filing 35

ORDER granting 32 motion to substitute and granting 33 second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The Federal Trade Commission is hereby substituted as the sole party defendant and the FTC is hereby given until November 22, 2016 in which to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Signed on 11/22/16 by District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 16-CV-00071-FJG
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Currently pending before the court is defendants’ Motion to Substitute and
Enlarge Time to File Answer (Doc. # 32) and defendants’ Second Motion for Extension
of Time to File Answer (Doc. # 33).
On January 28, 2016, the Does filed their Complaint against the United States
and Helen Wong, in her official capacity as legal counsel for the Federal Trade
Commission. On September 26, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court allowed plaintiffs an
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to more clearly state their claim for a violation
of the Privacy Act. However, the Court cautioned plaintiffs to be mindful that the Privacy
Act claims may not be asserted against individual agency employees. On October 21,
2016, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, but continued to name the same party
defendants. The Government has filed a Motion to Substitute, stating that because the
Privacy Act does not authorize claims against individual defendants, the remedy is to
dismiss the individual defendants and substitute the agency as the real party in interest.
Chichakli v. Kerry, No. 15-1152(CKK), 2016 WL 4435178, *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 19,

2016)(“plaintiff simply cannot bring Privacy Act claims against a government official or
employee in his individual capacity”); Earle v. Holder, 815 F.Supp.2d 176, 180 (D.D.C.
2011) aff’d, 2012 WL. 1450574 (D.C.Cir. Apr. 20, 2012)(dismissing complaint against
the individual officials and substituting the Department of Justice as the proper
defendant). Accordingly, the Government requests that the Court substitute the Federal
Trade Commission as the sole party defendant. The Government also requests an
extension of time until November 22, 2016 in which to answer or otherwise respond to
the Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, for good cause shown and with no opposition indicated, the Court
hereby GRANTS the Motion to Substitute (Doc. # 32) and GRANTS the Second Motion
for Extension of Time (Doc. # 33). The Federal Trade Commission is hereby substituted
as the sole party defendant and the FTC is hereby given until November 22, 2016 in
which to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.

Date: November 22, 2016
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
United States District Judge

2