status. 18 U.S.C. § 2725(3). The only motor vehicle records obtained by Metro-North, and therefore the only motor vehicle records at issue in this case, are employees’ driving histories. In Connecticut, a driving history contains a list of the operator’s traffic violations, as well as information pertaining to the status of the operator’s license and registration. See Defendant’s Affidavit of Marcella Muhammad, Acting Supervisor of Over the Counter Sales, Connecticut DMV (“Second Muhammad Affidavit”) at ¶ 5. The plain language of section 2753(3) makes clear that driving violations and driver’s status are not personal information and therefore not protected by the DPPA. See, e.g., IBEW Sys. Council No. 7 v. MTA Metro-North R.R., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28492, *7 (D.Conn. Apr. 18, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Metro-North needed neither the
holding that when the contract language is unambiguous we take these words to represent the parties intent and the plain meaning of this language governs its interpretation holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a violation of the fcra based on extraneous information where it was alleged that the document included broad language regarding disclosure of the information the accuracy of the information the consequences of providing a false statement and the effect of a photocopy holding state or local educational authority or authorized agency responsible for ensuring the protection of personal information and the destruction of the information when no longer needed holding that on its face the unambiguous language of the dppa does not provide any protection for traffic violations or information relating to the revocation suspension or violation of a drivers license holding that if easement language is clear and unambiguous and does not limit its duration then the court cannot impose such a limitation