Class action lawsuit asking for social security number

The reality is that we don't.

Why then do we ask you for it when you first come into our office?

The reason we ask for it is so we can have it in our files. We keep it in our files until the lawsuit has been started and the attorneys for the people you have sued have requested certain documents from us. Part of the information that is requested from us in a process known as “discovery,” is to provide the defense with your Social Security number.

Why would they want this information?

Simple. They want to do their own background investigation and they want to learn as much as possible about you during the course of the litigation.

One of the ways to do this is with your Social Security number.

By law, we are required to provide this information to the defense attorneys. It allows them the ability to do background checks on you as well as investigate your past and current issues.

If there are skeletons in your closet, you would do well to tell your attorney about them on the first visit so that he can deal with it as the case progresses through the discovery process.

Based upon the investigation performed by the defense attorney, you will then be asked many questions at your deposition, which is a question and answer session, given under oath. It is pretrial testimony. If the defense has damaging information, they will ask you about it at your deposition, it would be to your benefit to simply admit what ever was in your history and to move on.

If you try and hide something damaging, the defense will later show that you lied under oath. It is much better to admit something that has been damaging in the past and to simply move on.

What are the Consequences of Publishing a Party’s Personal Information in a Pending Lawsuit?

The case of Johnson v. Johnson and Bell, LTD., 2014 IL App (1st) 122677 (February 24, 2014), considered this issue and ruled that the litigation privilege precluded any liability.

Plaintiff’s personal injury action against Target was removed to federal district court. In connection with the final pretrial memorandum, certain documents containing plaintiff’s personal information including her social security number, date of birth, financial information and medical information were all filed. After a verdict for Target, plaintiff appealed to the 7th Circuit which is when plaintiff’s counsel discovered that plaintiff’s personal information had not been redacted by the defendants as plaintiff’s counsel had requested pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a).

Plaintiff filed a motion in the trial court asking to have the pleadings redacted and for sanctions. The motion was granted in part. Plaintiff then filed another motion in the 7th Circuit which ordered certain exhibits placed under seal but again denied sanctions.

Plaintiff then filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Target’s lawyers for invasion of privacy, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from the failure to redact certain personal information from documents. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint and an appeal was filed to the Appellate Court. Justice Connors, with Justices Cunningham and Delort concurring, affirmed the dismissal for the reasoning that attorneys enjoy an immunity from defamation actions arising out of a judicial proceeding. The Court relied on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 (1977). The Court referred to it as an absolute privilege which “provides a complete bar to a claim for defamation, regardless of the defendant's motive or the unreasonableness of his conduct” citing Thompson v. Frank, 313 Ill. App. 3d 661, 663 (2000).

So, at the end of the day, we have a situation where a party’s personal financial information was made public as part of the court record, albeit inadvertently, and given the chance to redact the materials to remove the personal information, took no steps to protect the information, and suffered no adverse consequences.

We have rules which protect an individual’s personal information from disclosure. Section 40 of the Identity Protection Act, 5 ILCS 179/40, passed in 2010 protects disclosure of Social Security numbers. In response the Illinois Supreme Court adopted Rule 138, which went into effect on 1/1/2012, prohibiting inclusion of Social Security numbers within any filings "unless required for a particular filing." (It is difficult to imagine any scenario in which it would be required.) Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 (effective Dec. 1, 2007) requires redacted pleadings to protect confidential information such as a Social Security Numbers.

The problem with all of these rules is that there are no penalties for disclosures of confidential personal information unless it ca be shown that it was deliberate.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of printing Social Security numbers on the outsides of form letters mailed to customers to tell them about the bank’s efforts to protect their private information.

A sign outside the headquarters of JP Morgan Chase & Co in New York, September 19, 2013. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Filed on Thursday in federal court in Chicago, the lawsuit accused the largest bank in the United States of violating federal and state laws and subjecting its customers to increased risk of identity theft.

A JPMorgan spokeswoman declined comment.

The allegations are another embarrassment for the financial company amid a rash of civil and criminal probes, ranging from the massive “London Whale” trading scandal to possible bribery in China.

On Thursday, it disclosed $1 billion in payouts to settle four civil regulatory probes.

The new lawsuit was filed on behalf of Alexander Furman, a Buffalo Grove, Illinois resident, who said JPMorgan twice mailed him preprinted forms with his name, address and Social Security number on the outsides, and failed to follow up on his complaints.

The first mailing, sent around September 1, was a privacy notification explaining how JPMorgan safeguards customers’ personal information, according to the lawsuit.

Furman complained immediately and was told the bank would rectify the situation, according to the lawsuit.

Even so, Furman received a benefit notification from the bank about two weeks later with his social security number still printed on the front, the lawsuit said.

COVETED BY THIEVES

“It (the bank) should have immediately notified its customers and certainly taken steps to prevent it happening the second time,” said Elizabeth Fegan, a partner at Hagens Berman law firm in Oak Park, Illinois, who filed the suit.

The lawsuit cited JPMorgan’s own warning, in online information about its security procedures, that a name combined with a Social Security number is a prime way for thieves to steal an identify.

“It’s very damaging,” Fegan added. “Chase even says on its Web site that providing Social Security numbers to an identity thief is ‘as good as gold.’”

Disclosure of Social Security numbers can be especially harmful since they cannot easily be replaced, like a credit or debit card, the lawsuit said.

Among other violations, the lawsuit alleged that Chase broke Illinois’ consumer fraud act, which prohibits the printing of Social Security numbers on mailings. Several states have passed such laws to help combat identity theft.

The lawsuit seeks class action status representing any JPMorgan customers who received mailings with their Social Security numbers printed on the outside. It said thousands or possibly millions of customers could be part of the class.

Fegan said she has not received confirmation from the bank about how many customers were affected, but the forms appeared to be mass mailings.

The case is Alexander Furman et al v JP Morgan Chase & Co et al, No. 13-cv-06749, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Andre Grenon

for-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up