8/18/23, 12:03 PM Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition

Welcome to the new look of justice.gov. In the coming months you’ll see more pages in ×
this new design. Please share your feedback with our webmaster.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Menu

Search

Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition

Share

Accounting of Certain Disclosures

“Each agency, with respect to each system of records under its control, shall--

(1) except for disclosures made under subsections (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, keep an
accurate accounting of--

(A) the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another
agency made under subsection (b) of this section; and

(B) the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made;

(2) retain the accounting made under paragraph (1) of this subsection for at least five years or
the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made;

(3) except for disclosures made under subsection (b)(7) of this section, make the accounting
made under paragraph (1) of this subsection available to the individual named in the record at
his request; and

(4) inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute made by the
agency in accordance with subsection (d) of this section of any record that has been disclosed
to the person or agency if an accounting of the disclosure was made.”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(c)(1)-(4).
TOP
Comment:

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/accounting 1/6
8/18/23, 12:03 PM Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition

With the exception of the need to know disclosure and the required FOIA disclosure exceptions,
agencies are required to keep accurate accountings of their record disclosures.

Section 552a(c) of the Privacy Act establishes requirements for agencies to follow when
accounting for disclosures of records.  Subsection (c)(1) explicitly excepts both intra-agency
“need to know” disclosures and FOIA disclosures from its coverage.  See, e.g., Clarkson v. IRS,
811 F.2d 1396, 1397-98 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (finding IRS’s internal disclosure of records
to its criminal investigation units does not require accounting).

While agencies do not need to account for disclosures made within the agency, the agency
must account for all disclosures made outside of the agency, including disclosures pursuant to
routine uses and law enforcement agencies (even though the law enforcement agency may be
exempt from disclosures to the subject individual).  OMB Memorandum for Heads of
Departments and Agencies, Attachment B – Instructions for Complying with the President’s
Memorandum of May 14, 1998, “Privacy and Personal Information in Federal Records” B.2.d.
(Jan. 7, 1999) [hereinafter OMB Memo 99-05], https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-99-05;
see Quinn v. Navy, No. 94-56067, 1995 WL 341513, at *1 (9th Cir. June 8, 1995) (finding that
disclosure of records within the Navy was exempt from accounting requirements).

OMB guidelines state that an agency must be able to maintain an accurate and complete
accounting of disclosures so as to be able to respond to an individual’s request for access to that
accounting of disclosures.

Additionally, OMB stated that “[w]hile an agency need not keep a running tabulation of every
disclosure at the time it is made, the agency must be able to reconstruct an accurate and
complete accounting of disclosures so as to be able to respond to requests in a timely fashion.” 
OMB Memo 99-05, B.2.d., https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-99-05; see also OMB 1975
Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,956, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.  Accounting of
disclosures made outside of the agency is required “even when such disclosure is . . . with the
written consent or at the request of the individual.”  OMB 1975 Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at
28,955, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

In at least one district court case, the court noted that the records themselves do not need to
contain the required accounting information.

In one case, a district court noted that although an agency is required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
552a(c) to keep an accurate accounting of each disclosure, there is no requirement that the
“disclosed records themselves contain ‘the date, nature and purpose’ of each disclosure.” 
Sieverding v. DOJ, 693 F. Supp. 2d 93, 105-06 (D.D.C. 2010), summary affirmance granted, No.
13-5060, 2013 WL 6801184 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 11, 2013) (per curiam).  The district court also stated
that the accounting requirement only “requires agencies to keep accurate accountings of their
TOP
disclosures of records; they need not account for conversations or personal visits.”  Id. at 106.

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/accounting 2/6
8/18/23, 12:03 PM Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition

Individuals have a right of access to an accounting of disclosures similar to the access right
provided by subsection (d)(1), but are exempt from accessing such an accounting: (1) documenting
law enforcement request disclosures under subsection (b)(7); and (2) subject to the Privacy Act
exemption provisions, pursuant to subsection (j) or subsection (k).

It is important to recognize that subsection (c)(3) grants individuals a right of access to the
accounting of disclosures similar to the access right provided by subsection (d)(1).  See
Standley v. DOJ, 835 F.2d 216, 219 (9th Cir. 1987) (entitling plaintiff to gain access to list,
compiled by U.S. Attorney, of persons in IRS to whom disclosures of grand jury materials about
plaintiff were made); Ray v. DOJ, 558 F. Supp. 226, 228 (D.D.C. 1982) (requiring addresses of
private persons who requested plaintiff’s records to be released to plaintiff notwithstanding
that “concern about possible harassment [sic] of these individuals may be legitimate”), aff’d,
720 F.2d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (unpublished table decision); cf. Quinn, 1995 WL 341513, at *1
(finding no records to disclose in response to request for accounting because there were no
disclosures that required accounting); Beaven v. DOJ, No. 03-84, 2007 WL 1032301, at *23 (E.D.
Ky. Mar. 30, 2007) (finding accounting provisions not applicable for unauthorized disclosures
because provisions only cover disclosures made under subsection (b)), aff’d in part & remanded
in part on other grounds, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010). 

However, subsection (c)(3) makes an explicit exception “for disclosures made under subsection
(b)(7).”  5 U.S.C. § 552a(c)(3); see also Lora v. INS, No. 2:02cv756, 2002 WL 32488472, at *2 (E.D.
Va. Oct. 8, 2002) (holding that plaintiff could not know whether AUSA had properly requested
disclosed document from legacy INS because he was “not entitled to any accounting of
disclosures” made under subsection (b)(7)) aff’d per curiam, 61 F. App’x 80 (4th Cir. 2003).

Of course, it should not be overlooked that certain Privacy Act exemptions – 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)
and (k) – are potentially available to shield an “accounting of disclosures” record from release to
the subject thereof under subsection (c)(3).  See Vazquez v. DOJ, 764 F. Supp. 2d 117, 120 (D.D.C.
2011) (ruling that “DOJ properly denied plaintiff’s request under the Privacy Act on the basis
that such records are” in a system “which the FBI has exempted” from the accounting provision
pursuant to exemption (j)(2)); Zahedi v. DOJ, No. 10-694, 2011 WL 1872206, at *3 (D. Or. May 16,
2011) (“Plaintiff seeks an accounting of information obtained pursuant to a search warrant in the
context of a criminal investigation, which falls squarely within the exemptions [(j)(2) and (k)(2)]
to the Privacy Act’s accounting provision.”); Standley, 835 F.2d at 219 (remanding case for
consideration of whether exemptions under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j) and (k) are applicable); Hornes v.
EOUSA, No. 04-2190, 2006 WL 792680, at *4 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2006) (finding, pursuant to
exemption (j)(2), that “EOUSA has specifically exempted its system of ‘Criminal Case Files’ from
the disclosure requirements of subsection (c)(3)”); Maydak v. DOJ, 254 F. Supp. 2d 23, 34-35
(D.D.C. 2003) (asserting that although agency’s “conten[tion] that it ‘is exempt from [the
accounting provision] with respect to logs of disclosure’ . . . is incorrect,” and that “[e]xemption
TOP
from the accounting requirement of § 552a(c) is not as expansive as seemingly being

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/accounting 3/6
8/18/23, 12:03 PM Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition

suggested by [the agency],” nevertheless finding that plaintiff failed to state claim and had no
right of access where system was exempt from provisions of subsection (c)(3) pursuant to
subsection (j)); Mittleman v. Treasury, 919 F. Supp. 461, 469 (D.D.C. 1995) (finding that
“application of exemption (k)(2) . . . is valid” and that Department of the Treasury OIG’s General
Allegations and Investigative Records System is exempt “because, inter alia, application of the
accounting-of-disclosures provision . . . would alert the subject to the existence of an
investigation, possibly resulting in hindrance of an investigation”), aff’d in part & remanded in
part on other grounds, 104 F.3d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Bagley v. FBI, No. 88-4075, slip op. at 2-4
(N.D. Iowa Aug. 28, 1989) (applying subsection (j)(2)); see also Hart v. FBI, No. 94 C 6010, 1995
WL 170001, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 1995) (noting exemption of FBI’s Criminal Justice Information
Services Division Records System), aff’d, 91 F.3d 146 (7th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table
decision).

For a further discussion of general accounting procedures and practices, see OMB 1975
Guidelines, 40 Fed. Reg. at 28,955-56, https://www.justice.gov/paoverview_omb-75.

A plaintiff may seek damages for an agency’s failure to maintain an accurate accounting of
disclosures.

Finally, a plaintiff may seek damages for an agency’s failure to maintain adequate accounting of
disclosures.  See Sussman v. Marshals Serv., 734 F. Supp.2d 138, 149 (D.D.C. 2010) (stating that
“[t]he core elements of the claim are (1) failure . . . to maintain an accurate accounting of
disclosures, and (2) a resultant adverse effect.” (quoting Sussman v. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d
1106, 1124 (D.C. Cir. 2007))).  An individual can recover damages for accounting failures
regarding disclosures “only to the extent those disclosures involved materials in his records.” 
494 F.3d at 1124.

Next Section: Indviudal's Right of Access

Updated October 11, 2022

TOP

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/accounting 4/6
8/18/23, 12:03 PM Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530

Contact the Department

Phone: 202-514-2000
TTY/ASCII/TDD: 800-877-8339

Signup for Email Updates

Social Media

Archives

Budget & Performance

FOIA

Accessibility

Legal Policies & Disclaimers

Privacy Policy

For Employees

Information Quality

Office of the Inspector General

No FEAR Act Data

Small Business

Vote.gov

TOP
Español

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/accounting 5/6
8/18/23, 12:03 PM Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition

Have a question about Government Services?

Contact USA.gov

TOP

https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/accounting 6/6