Pendergraft v. DeJoy et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARK A. PENDERGRAFT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-1000-D
)
DAVID P. STEINER, Postmaster 	)
General, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of a Privacy Act Order [Doc. No.
56], to which Defendant responded [Doc. No. 57]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
Plaintiff alleges in this action that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis
of his race, age, and color, and that Defendant retaliated against him for engaging in
protected activity, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et
seq. In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to The Privacy Act of 1974, 5
U.S.C. § 552a.
The Privacy Act governs the circumstances under which government agencies may
disclose information contained in their records. Section 552a(b) provides:
No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a
system of records by any means of communication to any
person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written
request by, or with prior written consent of, the individual to
whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record
would be—
…
Case 5:24-cv-01000-D Document 58 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(12) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(12). “The Privacy Act … was enacted to protect the privacy of
individuals identified in information systems maintained by Federal agencies by preventing
misuse of that information.” Andrews v. Veterans Admin. of U.S., 838 F.2d 418, 421-22
(10th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The Privacy Act “allow[s] an
individual to participate in ensuring that his records are accurate and properly used, and
[imposes] responsibilities on federal agencies to maintain their records accurately.”
Palmieri v. United States, 194 F. Supp. 3d 12, 17 (D.D.C. 2016).
As set forth in Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court authorize
Defendant to produce the following United States Postal Service (USPS) records:
• 	Plaintiff’s complete personnel file;
• 	Personnel files of supervisors, managers, and all decision-
makers involved in Plaintiff’s non-selection of all the positions
[for which] he applied, and his termination;
• 	Training, disciplinary, safety, and performance records for all
above listed supervisors, managers, and all decision-makers
involved or named by Plaintiff in his requests;
• 	Safety records of USPS Transportation employees, the box
trucks and semi-trucks used and their records, citations issued,
and accidents/wrecks and the P.V.O. Transportation drivers
involved;
• 	Internal complaints or investigations involving Plaintiff, his
supervisors, his managers, and all the decision-makers and the
employees involved;
• 	Emails, 	memoranda, 	texts, 	notes, 	and 	any 	other
communications referring to and/or naming Plaintiff;
Case 5:24-cv-01000-D Document 58 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 4

3
• 	EEO records, investigative notes, and all related materials;
[and]
• 	Any 	other 	Privacy-Act 	protected 	materials 	responsive 	to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
[Doc. No. 56, at 3-4].
In response, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s request for a Privacy Act order is
premature and not sufficiently tailored to specific individuals and/or documents. Plaintiff
has not identified specific individuals whose interests may be implicated by Defendant’s
disclosure of documents. Defendant notes that—as of Defendant’s response date—Plaintiff
had not served any discovery requests. Thus, Defendant is unable to ascertain whether the
Privacy Act would even preclude USPS from disclosing certain records and information.1
Defendant further asserts that, after Defendant identifies documents responsive to any
discovery requests issued by Plaintiff, the parties can confer on whether a Privacy Act order
is appropriate, which “may well result in a non-objection from the Defendant with respect
to particular employees and records.” [Doc. No. 57, at 4].
Defendant suggests that denying Plaintiff’s request for a broad, unspecified Privacy
Act order would allow the parties to identify through discovery whose privacy interests
may be affected by any requested disclosure. Defendant also contends that requiring the
1 It also appears that a Privacy Act order would be unnecessary as to at least some of Plaintiff’s
requested documents. The Tenth Circuit has held that “‘disclosure’ under the Privacy Act means
‘providing personal review of a record, or a copy thereof, to someone other than the data subject
or the data subject’s authorized representative.” Luster v. Vilsack, 667 F.3d 1089, 1098 (10th Cir.
2011) (emphasis added). The Court is unsure whether a Privacy Act order would be appropriate
for documents in which Plaintiff is the subject.
Case 5:24-cv-01000-D Document 58 Filed 04/28/26 Page 3 of 4

4
parties to confer prior to requesting a Privacy Act order would help clarify the substance
of the requested order and potentially narrow or moot the issue(s) altogether.
Upon consideration, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s request for a
blanket Privacy Act order is insufficiently specific and premature. Of course, as discovery
progresses, either party may request that the Court enter a Privacy Act order for specified
documents and information. For any renewed request for a Privacy Act order, the parties
are directed to meet and confer prior to filing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of a Privacy
Act Order [Doc. No. 56] is DENIED, without prejudice to resubmission as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-01000-D Document 58 Filed 04/28/26 Page 4 of 4