Krekelberg v. Anoka County

Background

Amy Elizabeth Krekelberg brought claims under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, a federal law regulating access to personal information in motor-vehicle records. The remaining claims went to a jury in June 2019. The jury found that Minneapolis agents or employees impermissibly accessed Krekelberg’s information 74 times on or after December 17, 2009, and awarded her $285,000 in compensatory damages. It also found that Matthew Olson and Heather Young willfully or recklessly violated the law on one date each and awarded $150,000 in punitive damages against each of them. Judgment was entered for Krekelberg on June 25, 2019.

The defendants—the City of Minneapolis, Heather Young, and Matthew Olson—asked the court to enter judgment in their favor, hold a new trial, alter or correct the judgment, and stay enforcement. Krekelberg sought attorneys’ fees and costs, changes to the judgment to add equitable relief, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Post-trial motions

The court denied the defendants’ request for judgment as a matter of law. Applying the rule that a jury verdict must stand when reasonable jurors could reach the result based on the evidence, the court found that the trial evidence supported findings that Olson, Young, and 56 other Minneapolis police officers accessed Krekelberg’s information without a permissible purpose. The court also upheld its instructions that accessing records for personal reasons or in violation of applicable police policy, state law, or regulation could not be treated as an agency function under the statute.

The court denied the defendants’ motions for a new trial and for remittitur, which is a reduction of an allegedly excessive jury award. It concluded that the jury instructions correctly stated the law and that evidence of other or time-barred accesses was properly admitted to show state of mind, intent, knowledge, lack of mistake, and the context of the charged conduct. The court also rejected the argument that the damages were so excessive that they required reduction.

The court granted the defendants’ motions to stay enforcement of the judgment without requiring a bond. It found that the defendants’ documentation and assurances adequately secured Krekelberg during the appeal and that Minneapolis could pay the judgment.

Attorneys’ fees and costs

The court granted Krekelberg’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in part. It found that she was the prevailing party and had succeeded on the claims at the heart of the case. Krekelberg initially sought $1,289,198.25 in attorneys’ fees after correcting her request, plus $47,086.36 in costs.

The court deducted $20,532.50 for work on the final reply and supporting documents. It then reduced the remaining fee request by 25 percent for billing and staffing problems and by another 25 percent for inefficiencies, including assigning expensive attorneys routine or clerical work. The resulting attorneys’ fee award was $644,599.13. The court awarded the full $47,086.36 in requested costs.

Equitable relief

The court granted Krekelberg’s motion for equitable relief in part under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. It granted Requests 1 through 4 as described in the order. Minneapolis must amend Police Department Policy No. 4-501 to state that employees may access driver and vehicle records only for official business purposes. The department must create an internal directory with identification photographs of fellow officers. Officers who meet the stated criteria must complete required MyBCA training if they have not already done so. The department must also provide specific training on permissible use of protected information to employees with access to motor-vehicle-record databases, either through a larger program or a separate session, and employees must affirm their understanding of the restrictions.

The court granted Request 5, requiring the parties to submit a joint proposal concerning the scope and nature of a review and report regarding the Minneapolis Police Department’s internal-affairs procedures for alleged misuse of driver-information databases, including the historical treatment of complaints by female officers. If the parties could not agree, each had to submit a recommendation of no more than five pages within 30 days.

The court denied Request 6, which sought a peer-intervention program. It found that Krekelberg had not sufficiently defined the proposed training or established its value for the community, while stating that the denial was not a finding that such programs lack merit or that Minneapolis officers do not need additional training.

Interest and liquidated damages

The court granted Krekelberg’s motion to add interest in part and denied it in part. It declined to award pre-judgment interest, finding the case unusual because liability and the potential award had been strongly contested for years and because the judgment already provided substantial compensation for nonfinancial harm. It granted post-judgment interest, to be calculated and accrued under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

The court declined to award additional liquidated damages. It stated that if no actual damages had been awarded, or if the actual-damages award were reduced on appeal, a cumulative award of $2,500 for each of the 74 violations would be appropriate under the circumstances. The order itself, however, awarded no liquidated damages.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank ordered that Krekelberg receive $644,599.13 in attorneys’ fees and $47,086.36 in costs; that the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, to alter, amend, or correct the judgment, and to stay be granted in part and denied in part, with the verdict remaining as entered and enforcement stayed without a bond; that equitable relief be granted in part, with Requests 1 through 5 granted and Request 6 denied; and that the motion to add pre- and post-judgment interest be granted in part and denied in part, with post-judgment interest awarded under federal law.