Taylor et al v. Acxiom Corporation et al

Filing 62

NOTICE by James D Clary, Sharon A Clary, Alice M Cooks, Arlando Cooks, Elizabeth DeWitt, Kenneth Gossip, Sr, Kennice Gossip, Pamela Hensley, Robert G Holliness, Carolyn Latham Holub, Sharon Taylor, Brandi Jewell, Tracy Karp, David Patterson, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Luz Ann Roberts, Kimberly Dawn Underwood, Marilyn Whitaker, William "Troy&q Wilson, James Douglas Booker, Lowry Briley, Twilah Brown, William Troy Wilson, Venisia Booker McGuire, Willie B. Booker of Filing Statement Delineating DPPA Violations for Various Defendants (Wilson, Jeremy)

Taylor et al v. Acxiom Corporation et al

Doc. 62

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 1 of 121

N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION S HARON TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v A . CXIOM, INC., et al., Defendants. P § § § § § § J AUSE NO. 2:07-cv-0001 P UDGE: DAVID WALTER

V LAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF IOLATIONS OF THE DRIVERS' PRIC ACY PROTECTION ACT V

D LAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT P ursuant to the Court's March 4, 2008, Order, Plaintiffs hereby submit their Statement of Violations of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act by the Defendants, and in supportN thereof, state: c amed Plaintiffs are each holders of Texas drivers' licenses or identification r ards and have been during all times material to the allegations raised in Plaintiffs' most i ecently amended complaint. Each named Plaintiffs' "personal information" as that term s defined in the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act, is maintained by the State of Texas in a connection with the State of Texas's issuance of drivers' license or identification cards nd/or registration of motor vehicles. Each Defendant named in this litigation has obtained and used each named Plaintiffs' personal information from the State of Texas in violation of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2721 ("DPPA"). What D follows is a breakdown, by case, discussing how each individual Defendant violated the PPA by either improperly obtaining, or using various groups of named Plaintiffs' personal information, as that term is defined by the DPPA. For the convenience of the Court and the Parties, each Defendant is in the order in which they are found on the l ourt's various docket sheets for each individual case. Each section is accompanied by a ist of certain of the named Plaintiffs whom, after reasonable investigation, have 0 concluded that a particular Defendant violated the DPPA as to their individual data. A -13 7 CS State & Local Solutions, Inc. D efendant ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. contends that it contracts with a number of state and local governmental agencies to match automobile license numbers from phoC graphs of persons alleged to have committed traffic violations. This Defendant to

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

I

1
Dockets.Justia.com

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 2 of 121

pepresented to the State of Texas that this information was being obtained for the following urposes: "child support enforcement program" T p his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant and are further unaware of any reason Defendant would have to obtain their personal information:1 James Booker, Willie Booker, Lowry Briley, Twila Brown, James Rlary, Sharon Clary, Alice Cooks, Elizabeth Dewitt, Kenneth Gossip ,Kennice Gossip, C obert Holliness, Carolyn Holub, Tracy Karp, Venisia Booker McGuire, David Patterson, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Sharon Taylor, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn J Whitaker, William Wilson, Luz Roberts, Pamela Hensley Dial, Arlando Cooks, Brandi ewell.2B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of h R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information of over1 twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 2 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he DPPA by these Defendants. C
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

r

2

Case 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 3 of 121

u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use of the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the DPPA. G ila Corporation D a efendant Gila Corporation is in the business of collecting fines due to governmental gencies. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from s "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant provides its cervices to governmental entities on a contingency fee basis. Thus, this Defendant is oollecting debts not only for its clients' benefit, but for its own as well. This Defendant btained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State of Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: "verify and correct addresses of deF tors" b b or use in the normal course of business by a legitimate usiness or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only-- ( A) to verify the accuracy of personal information a submitted by the individual to the business or its ( gents, employees, or contractors; and cB) if such information as so submitted is not orrect or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for the purposes of preventing r fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or i ecovering on a debt or security interest against, the ndividual.

T p

his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant and are further unaware of any reason Defendant would have to obtain their

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

P

3

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 4 of 121

ersonal information:3 James Booker, Willie Booker, Lowry Briley, Twila Brown, James Rlary, Sharon Clary, Alice Cooks, Elizabeth Dewitt, Kenneth Gossip, Kennice Gossip, C obert Holliness, Carolyn Holub, Tracy Karp, Venisia Booker McGuire, David Patterson, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Sharon Taylor, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn J Whitaker, William Wilson, Luz Roberts, Pamela Hensley Dial, Arlando Cooks, Brandi ewell. 4 B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of h R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use of the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the DPPA. 3

While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 4 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he DPPA by these Defendants. C
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

p

4

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 5 of 121

mD ican Electric Power Service Corporation er

efendant American Electric Power Service Corporation is an electric utility provider. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from t "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to he State of Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: 1 2. "to help in the verification of customer identity" . "to assist in gathering current information on a customer in an effort to prevent fraud or recover a debt owed to us." and F b or use in the normal course of business by a legitimate usiness or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only-- ( A) to verify the accuracy of personal information a submitted by the individual to the business or its ( gents, employees, or contractors; and cB) if such information as so submitted is not orrect or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for the purposes of preventing r fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or i ecovering on a debt or security interest against, the ndividual;

T p

his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant or any information which they gave this Defendant or any other person or entity which would need to be verified by this Defendant and are further unaware of any Wason Defendant would have to obtain their personal information: 5 James Booker re illie Booker Lowry Briley Twila Brown James Clary Sharon Clary Alice Cooks Elizabe5h Dewitt Kenneth Gossip Kennice Gossip Robert Holliness Carolyn Holub Tracy t
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this DefeCdant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. n
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

A

5

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 6 of 121

T arp Venisia Booker McGuire David Patterson Ronnie Phillips James Roberts Sharon aylor Kimberly Underwood Marilyn Whitaker William Wilson Luz Roberts Pamela HenBley Dial Arlando Cooks Brandi Jewell 6 s ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of h R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use of the above-referenced I Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the DPPA. ndustrial Foundation of America D T efendant Industrial Foundation of America is a not-for-profit trade association. r his Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle ecords" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State of Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: T e o assist IFA members in pre-screening prospective mployees and monitoring current employees in order to maintain a safe workplace. 6

t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he DPPA by these Defendants. C
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

K

6

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 7 of 121

or use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by r motor vehicle manufacturers, and removal of non-owner mcords from the original owner records of motor vehicle e anufacturers to carry out the purposes of titles I and IV of I the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, the Automobile C formation Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.), the n 3 lean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and chapters 301, 05, and 321-331 of title 49 F or use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft; motor vehicle emissions; motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories; performance monitoring of motor vehicles, motor vehicle arts and dealers; motor vehicle market research activities, r including survey research; and removal of non-owner mcords from the original owner records of motor vehicle e F anufacturers. v or use by an employer or its agent or insurer to obtain or derify information relating to a holder of a commercial river's license that is required under chapter 313 of title 49.

T

p his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osition previously taken."). T b he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship, business or otherwise, etween themselves and this Defendant or any information which they gave this Defendant or any other entity which would need to be verified by this Defendant and are further unaware of any reason Defendant would have to obtain their personal S formation:7 James Booker, Willie Booker, Lowry Briley, Twila Brown, James Clary, in haron 7Clary, Alice Cooks, Elizabeth Dewitt, Kenneth Gossip, Kennice Gossip, Robert
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this DefeCdant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. n
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

f

7

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 8 of 121

olliness, Carolyn Holub, Tracy Karp, Venisia Booker McGuire, David Patterson, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Sharon Taylor, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn Whitaker, William Wilson, Luz Roberts, Pamela Hensley Dial, Arlando Cooks, Brandi Jewell.8 B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of h R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use of the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the DPPA. S outhwestern Bell D T efendant Southwestern Bell is a telephone service provider operating in the State of exas. Southwestern Bell obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. Southwestern Bell represented to the State of Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: F b or use in the normal course of business by a legitimate usiness or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only--

8

t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he DPPA by these Defendants. C
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

H

8

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 9 of 121

A) to verify the accuracy of personal information a submitted by the individual to the business or its ( gents, employees, or contractors; and cB) if such information as so submitted is not orrect or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for the purposes of preventing r fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or i ecovering on a debt or security interest against, the ndividual.

D

efendant Southwestern Bell is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its purpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the d ( octrine of quasi-estoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasii estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is nconsistent with a position previously taken."). T b he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship, business or otherwise, etween themselves and this Defendant or any information which they gave this Defendant or any other entity which would need to be verified by this Defendant and are further unaware of any reason Defendant would have to obtain their personal C formation:9 James Booker, Twila Brown, James Clary, Alice Cooks, Robert Holliness, in J arolyn Holub, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn Whitaker, Arlando Cooks, Brandi 0 ewell.1B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the abovea referenced Plaintiffs and Defendant Southwestern Bell, the above-referenced Plaintiffs ssert that Defendant Southwestern Bell had no permissible purpose for obtaining their l personal information. Thus, Defendant Southwestern Bell has violated the DPPA by at ieast the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal nformation" for an impermissible purpose ­ to save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it needs additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each time it needs an additional 9
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 1
0 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he DPPA by these Defendants. C

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

(

9

Case 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 10 of 121

ustomers' information (as many other entities do on a regular basis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose Defendant i Southwestern Bell had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal tnformation" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. h Dather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, efendant Southwestern Bell chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is S the basis for Plaintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, Defendant outhwestern Bell has continued to use Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the above-referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its ordinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by Southwestern Bell is not an e onumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use f the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the T DPPA. exas Motor Transportation Association D efendant Impactinfo, Inc. is a compiler of motor vehicle and drivers license databases solely for the purpose of sale of data to its members. This Defendant obtained t all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by rhe State of Texas. Defendant failed to deny this assertion in its interrogatory response i elating to this issue. This Defendant represented to the State of Texas that this nformation was being obtained for the following purposes: F or use by an employer or an authorized agent or insuer of the employer to obtain or verify information relating to a u holder of a commercial driver's license that is required Pnder 49 U.S.C. Chapter 313 rovide member companies driver MVR pursuant to US DOT Regulations. T p his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osition previously taken."). T t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and ehis Defendant or any information which they gave this Defendant or any other person or ntity which would need to be verified by this Defendant and are further unaware of any

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

c

10

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 11 of 121

Wason Defendant would have to obtain their personal information: 11 James Booker e illie Booker Lowry Briley Twila Brown James Clary Sharon Clary Alice Cooks K Elizabeth Dewitt Kenneth Gossip Kennice Gossip Robert Holliness Carolyn Holub Tracy T arp Venisia Booker McGuire David Patterson Ronnie Phillips James Roberts Sharon aylor Kimberly Underwood Marilyn Whitaker William Wilson Luz Roberts Pamela HenBley Dial Arlando Cooks Brandi Jewell.12 s ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to resell the data to other parties and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" other than its own immediately contemplated use of the information for one of the DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. Resale of data is not a proper purpose for obtaining plaintiffs t personal information and obtainment of this data merely to resell violates the express e Drms of the DPPA, as more fully explained in Plaintiffs' various responses to Motions to ismiss this lawsuit. See Locate.Pius.Com. Inc. v. Iowa D.O.T, 650 N.W.2d 609,616 (Iowa 2002). Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to use Plaintiffs' personal p information by maintaining a database containing the above-referenced Plaintiffs' ersonal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its ordinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information b Ty this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. hus, this continuing use of the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in A direct violation of the DPPA. merican Municipal Services Corporation D c efendant American Municipal Services Corporation is in the business of assisting "ourt collection of warrants & citations.. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' Tpersonal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. his Defendant provides its services to governmental entities on a contingency fee basis. 1
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 1
2 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he C DPPA by these Defendants. 1

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

r

11

Case 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 12 of 121

whus, this Defendant is collecting debts not only for its clients' benefit, but for its own as v ell. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor oehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State c f Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: "verify and orrect addresses of debtors" F or use by any government agency, including any court or a law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or Sny private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, Ftate, or local agency in carrying out its functions. or use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body, a including the service of process, investigation in nticipation of litigation, and the execution or enforcement F of judgments and orders, or pursuant to an order of a Lederal, State, or local court. ocate people with outstanding warrants and citations from Texas municipal and county courts.

T p

his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant and are further unaware of any reason Defendant would have to obtain their J ersonal information:13 James Booker, Willie Booker, Lowry Briley, Twila Brown, p G mes Clary, Sharon Clary, Alice Cooks, Elizabeth Dewitt, Kenneth Gossip, Kennice a P ossip, Robert Holliness, Carolyn Holub, Tracy Karp, Venisia Booker McGuire, David atterson, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Sharon Taylor, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn J Whitaker, William Wilson, Luz Roberts, Pamela Hensley Dial, Arlando Cooks, Brandi 1 ewell14
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 1
4 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this 3

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

T

12

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 13 of 121

ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of h R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use of the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the DPPA. E ugene R. Bucciarelli d/b/a International Orgainzation for Migration D p efendant Eugene R. Bucciarelli d/b/a International Orgainzation for Migration Brovides collection services on refugee travel loans for the U.S. Department of State's ureau for Population Refugees & Migration. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of v Texas. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor oehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State f Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: "update addresses for county and municipal courts" F or use by any government agency, including any court or a law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or Sny private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, Ttate, or local agency in carrying out its functions. p o seek current address data of past due travel loan holders.

articular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class representatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of t he C DPPA by these Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

B

13

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 14 of 121

his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its p urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel, a party is p precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant and are further unaware of any reason Defendant would have to obtain their J ersonal information:15 James Booker, Willie Booker, Lowry Briley, Twila Brown, p G mes Clary, Sharon Clary, Alice Cooks, Elizabeth Dewitt, Kenneth Gossip, Kennice a P ossip, Robert Holliness, Carolyn Holub, Tracy Karp, Venisia Booker McGuire, David atterson, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Sharon Taylor, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn J Whitaker, William Wilson, Luz Roberts, Pamela Hensley Dial, Arlando Cooks, Brandi 6 ewell.1B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. h ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. 1

While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 1
6 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he C DPPA by these Defendants.

5

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

T

14

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 15 of 121

ichael Dinapoli d/b/a State, Metropolitan & County Services D efendant Michael Dinapoli d/b/a State, Metropolitan & County Services provides o certain investigative functions for various counties and municipalities. This Defendant btained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State of Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: "update addresses for county and municipal courts" F or use by any government agency, including any court or a law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or Sny private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, T tate, or local agency in carrying out its functions. p his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant and are further unaware of any reason Defendant would have to obtain their J ersonal information:17 James Booker, Willie Booker, Lowry Briley, Twila Brown, p G mes Clary, Sharon Clary, Alice Cooks, Elizabeth Dewitt, Kenneth Gossip, Kennice a P ossip, Robert Holliness, Carolyn Holub, Tracy Karp, Venisia Booker McGuire, David atterson, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Sharon Taylor, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn J Whitaker, William Wilson, Luz Roberts, Pamela Hensley Dial, Arlando Cooks, Brandi ewell18 B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, 1
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 1
8 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he C DPPA by these Defendants. 7

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

M

15

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 16 of 121

his Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. h ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for 0 laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. T7-14 exas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company D efendant Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. is an insurance company. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State of Texas that this F information was being obtained for the following purposes: or use by an insurer or insurance support organization, or by a self insured entity, or an authorized agent of the entity, a in connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud ctivities, rating or underwriting. T p his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant or any information which they gave this Defendant or any other person or entity which would need to be verified by this Defendant and are further unaware of any Wason Defendant would have to obtain their personal information: 19 James Booker, re illie Booker, Lowry Briley, Twila Brown, James Clary, Sharon Clary, Alice Cooks, 1
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this DefC dant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. en
PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
9

t

16

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 17 of 121

Blizabeth Dewitt, Kennice Gossip, Robert Holliness, Carolyn Holub, Tracy Karp, Venisia W oker McGuire, Ronnie Phillips, James Roberts, Kimberly Underwood, Marilyn o hitaker, William Wilson, Luz Roberts, Arlando Cooks, Brandi Jewell20 B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of h R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use of the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the DPPA. F inally, this Defendant contends that it was entitled to obtain the entire database of Texas drivers and to review and use every piece of information contained therein to "underwrite" polices for its customers. Purportedly, this Defendant believes that it can access personal information for every person in the State of Texas to ensure that none of them live with one of its customers, which would entitle it to charge a higher premium to hat customer. This admitted use clearly constitutes a violation of the DPPA in that this I is not a legitimate underwriting activity. D nsurance Technologies Corporation efendant Insurance Technologies Corporation is provider of insurance rating and quoting services to insurance companies and insurance agencies. This Defendant 2
0 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he C DPPA by these Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

E

17

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 18 of 121

btained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State of Texas that this information was being obtained for the following purposes: F or use by an insurer or insurance support organization, or by a self insured entity, or an authorized agent of the entity, a in connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud "ctivities, rating or underwriting.; and aThis information will be used to help insurance companies nd insurance agents underwrite insurance policies. This n information will confirm valid Texas drivers' license c umbers and addresses provided by the insurance ompanies' agents' customers and prospects.

T p

his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant or any information which they gave this Defendant or any other person or entity which would need to be verified by this Defendant and are further unaware of any Wason Defendant would have to obtain their personal information: 21 James Booker re illie Booker Lowry Briley Twila Brown James Clary Sharon Clary Alice Cooks K Elizabeth Dewitt Kenneth Gossip Kennice Gossip Robert Holliness Carolyn Holub Tracy T arp Venisia Booker McGuire David Patterson Ronnie Phillips James Roberts Sharon aylor Kimberly Underwood Marilyn Whitaker William Wilson Luz Roberts Pamela Hensley Dial Arlando Cooks Brandi Jewell 22 B ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the abovereferenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this 2
While the remaining named Plaintiffs are aware of relationships between themselves and this particular defendant, they are in no way dismissing their claims that this defendant had an impermissible purpose for obtaining their particular "personal information" at the time that the data was obtained. The named Plaintiffs not listed in this paragraph reserve the right to explore, through discovery, whether this Defendant indeed had a permissible purpose for obtaining their particular data. 2
2 t Each Named Plaintiff in this litigation purports to represent a putative class of approximately P enty million holders of Texas Drivers' Licenses and Identification Cards. By delineating these particular w o laintiffs as having conducted an appropriate Rule 11 investigation as to the purpose for this Defendant to btain their personal information and having reasonably ascertained that a violation occurred by this particular Defendant as to their personal information, the Named Plaintiffs are in no way conceding that they do not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceeds as class t epresentatives and assert causes of action on behalf of the class as a whole for all discovered violations of r he C DPPA by these Defendants. 1

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

o

18

Case 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 19 of 121

efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. h ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for P u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these plaintiffs' personal information by this Defendant is not an enumerated use in the DPPA and is contrary to its provisions. Thus, this continuing use of the above-referenced J Plaintiffs' "personal information" is in direct violation of the DPPA. D I Specialty Services efendant JI Specialty Services is a third party insurance administrator. This Defendant obtained all named Plaintiffs' "personal information" from "motor vehicle records" maintained by the State of Texas. This Defendant represented to the State of Texas that this F information was being obtained for the following purposes: or use by an insurer or insurance support organization, or by a self insured entity, or an authorized agent of the entity, a in connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud "ctivities, rating or underwriting; and claims investigation activities; rating or underwriting" T p his Defendant is estopped from taking any inconsistent position regarding its urpose for obtaining named Plaintiffs' "personal information" by the doctrine of quasiestoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). ("Under the general doctrine of quasi-estoppel , a party is precluded from asserting to another's disadvantage, a right that is inconsistent with a osiTion previously taken."). t he following Plaintiffs are unaware of any relationship between themselves and this Defendant or any information which they gave this Defendant or any other person or entity which would need to be verified by this Defendant and are further unaware of any

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE D RIVERS' PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT

D

19

ase 2:07-cv-00001

Document 62

Filed 04/03/2008

Page 20 of 121

Wason Defendant would have to obtain their personal information: 23 James Booker e illie Booker Lowry Briley Twila Brown James Clary Sharon Clary Alice Cooks K Elizabeth Dewitt Kenneth Gossip Kennice Gossip Robert Holliness Carolyn Holub Tracy T arp Venisia Booker McGuire David Patterson Ronnie Phillips James Roberts Sharon aylor Kimberly Underwood Marilyn Whitaker William Wilson Luz Roberts Pamela HenBley Dial Arlando Cooks Brandi Jewell.24 s ased on the lack of any relationship, business or otherwise, between the aboveD referenced Plaintiffs and this Defendant, the above-referenced Plaintiffs assert that this efendant had no permissible purpose for obtaining their personal information. Thus, this Defendant has violated the DPPA by at least the following ways: obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal information" for an impermissible purpose ­ to n save itself time and/or money by not having to go back to the State of Texas each time it t eeds additional information, to avoid the inconvenience of having to go to the State each b me it needs an additional customers' information (as many other entities do on a regular i asis), and any other purposes adduced through further discovery in this case. Any purpose this Defendant had for obtaining the above-referenced Plaintiffs' "personal t information" other than an immediately contemplated use of the information for one of h R e DPPA's authorized uses for the information constitutes a violation of the DPPA. ather than verify information on a case-by-case basis as contemplated by the DPPA, this Defendant chose to simply obtain the entire database, containing the personal information P of over twenty million individuals. This choice to violate the law is the basis for u laintiffs' improper obtainment claims. Furthermore, this Defendant has continued to se Plaintiffs' personal information by maintaining a database containing the aboveo referenced Plaintiffs' personal information as part and parcel to the conduct of its rdinary business activities and as a business resource. This continuing use of these