“The Education Code provides that student records are ordinarily not available to the general public. (Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1396.) “‘A school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to any person without written parental consent or under judicial order’ except in certain situations not relevant here.” (Id.) “California law defines ‘pupil records’ as ‘any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, which is maintained by a school district....’” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 752.)
“As with California law, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) provides for the privacy of education records.(Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.)
‘Education records’ are defined as documents which ‘contain information directly related to a student’ or ‘are maintained by an educational agency or institution....’” (Id.)
In addition to the right of privacy reflected in these statutes, the right of privacy set forth in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution also protects a person’s educational records. (Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 832.) As a result, plaintiff’ right of privacy protects disclosure of her high school records. (Id.)
“When the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is required to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery.” (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) “The proponent of discovery of constitutionally protected material has the burden of making a threshold showing that the evidence sought is ‘directly relevant’ to the claim or defense.” (Id.)
The right to privacy is expressly guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution and, as interpreted by the courts, extends to various types of personal information. See, John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198 (a litigant may invoke the constitutional right to privacy as justification for refusing to disclose personal information). Privacy protections are also provided by Education Code Sections 49076 and 49077, which require written consent or a court order before school administrators can disclose student information. Here, Tyler has asserted his privacy rights with regard to his school records, including all related medical records, psychological records, and disciplinary records. In their separate motion, Fourmy and Granziera have asserted their right to privacy with regard to the same records. The parents contend that any discussions they had with school administrators regarding Tyler’s “behavior, conduct, performance, discipline, attendance, and truancy,” and any “parent/teacher conference records and reports” directly implicate their privacy rights.
California law defines “pupil records” as “any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, which is maintained by a school district....” (Ed.Code, Sec. 49061(b).) FERPA defines “education records” in nearly identical terms. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g (a)(4)(A).)
Implementing regulations promulgated by the state Department of Education further explain the term: “ ‘Pupil Record’ means information relative to an individual pupil gathered within or without the school system and maintained within the school system, regardless of the physical form in which it is maintained. Essential in this definition is the idea that any information which is maintained for the purpose of second party review is considered a pupil record.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 5, § 430, subd. (d).)”
“(a) A school district shall not permit access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order except as set forth in this section and as permitted by Part 99 (commencing with Section 99.1) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
Evidence Code § 49076 (c) provides:
“(c)(1) A person or party who is not permitted access to pupil records pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may request access to pupil records as provided for in paragraph (2).
(2) A local educational agency or other person or party who has received pupil records, or information from pupil records, may release the records or information to a person or party identified in paragraph (1) without the consent of the pupil's parent or guardian pursuant to Section 99.31(b) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if the records or information are deidentified, which requires the removal of all personally identifiable information, if the disclosing local educational agency or other person or party has made a reasonable determination that a pupil's identity is not personally identifiable, whether through single or multiple releases, and has taken into account other pertinent reasonably available information.”
In BRV, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742 the court considered whether the documents constituted “pupil records” under the statute, and observed:
California law defines “pupil records” as “any item of information directly related to an identifiable pupil, other than directory information, which is maintained by a school district....”
(Id. at 752 citing Ed. Code, Sec. 49061(b) and stating FERPA defines “education records” in nearly identical terms. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g,(a)(4)(A).).
The court of appeal concluded that the investigator’s report did not fit within the cases construing “pupil records” stating in relevant part:
“Certainly the language of the statute, though broadly written, does not encompass every document that relates to a student in any way and is kept by the school in any fashion. (Id. at 754.) “A pupil record is one that ‘directly relates’ to a student and is ‘maintained’ by the school.” Id. “We agree with the Supreme Court that the statute was directed at institutional records maintained in the normal course of business by a single, central custodian of the school. Typical of such records would be registration forms, class schedules, grade transcripts, discipline reports, and the like.”
(Id.)
“For all of the above reasons, we conclude the Davis report and its accompanying summaries were not pupil records within the meaning of Education Code sections 49061 and 49076.” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 754-755.)
Ehteshami-Hunt opposes the motions on the grounds that, because Plaintiff has not authorized disclosure (and the court has not issued an order requiring production), she is “compelled” to object on the basis of patient-psychotherapist/privacy privilege.
Jul 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
The defendant fails to meet its burden to show discovery is proper as to the plaintiff’s entire employment and personnel record given the plaintiff’s claim of privacy. Motion to Quash Subpoena—School Records (ROA 260) The motion of the plaintiff to quash the subpoena for school records served on Capistrano Unified School District and Garden Grove Unified School District is GRANTED. A.
Jul 09, 2020
Orange County, CA
By way of background, on February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action against Defendant Mariana Crevoiserat (“Mariana”), alleging causes of action for libel per se, slander per se, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), libel, slander, and invasion of privacy.
Jul 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
, secondary school, or postsecondary school . . .”
Jul 07, 2020
Fresno County, CA
It seeks information about payment of any part of the deposit to a specific school program. Finally, any objections on the basis of confidentiality, propriety or financial privacy are overcome by Plaintiff’s right to access information in this action. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 756.) The corporate right of privacy is not derived from the State Constitution and therefore, is a lesser right of privacy than an individual’s fundamental right of privacy. (Ibid.)
Jul 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The City moves to compel Whittier Elementary School to comply with a deposition subpoena for production of business records that the City propounded on 1/21/20. The motion is denied for two reasons. First, the subpoena, attached to the moving papers as Exhibit B, includes a mostly blank proof of service. The proof of service does not indicate who was served, where, what date, what time, etc. The proof of service is also not signed.
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Under the Hill test, while the patients have (prong 1) a protected privacy interest and (prong 2) a reasonable expectation of privacy, the court finds that, given Plaintiffs’ proposed opt-in notice, (prong 3) has not been met (i.e., the disclosure would involve no serious invasion of privacy).
Jul 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has not identified a cognizable privilege or privacy interest to protect. B. Maria's relationship status (p. 55:14-58:7) "The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citations.]
Jun 30, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Government Code 6254(c) provides that personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, are exempt from a request under the Public Records Act. The foregoing exemption was “developed to protect intimate details of personal and family life, not business judgments and relationships.” Bakersfield City School Dist. (2004) 118 CA4th 1041. The subject requests do not seek information regarding Mejia’s personal life.
Jun 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 590 [citing Governor Gray Davis Com. v. American Taxpayers Alliance (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 449, 456].) Defendants argue that Plaintiff seeks to impose liability for engaging in protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425(e) and Civil Code section 47(b). Defendants argue that the first and third causes of action are based on the statements made in the Notice to Quit.
Jun 25, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Hart High School Dist. (2012) 3 Cal.4th 861. Here, Plaintiff has properly alleged that Defendant is vicariously liable for its employees’ actions. Workers’ exclusivity also does not bar this action. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 CA4th 243, 288, “The Legislature … did not intend that an employer be allowed to raise the exclusivity rule for the purpose of deflecting a claim of discriminatory practices.”].)
Jun 24, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Respondent has met its burden of establishing that the catch-all exemption applies as here, in balancing the privacy interest of the complainant against the public interest in disclosure, the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Jun 24, 2020
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
Suggests Safari stay with each parent week-on and week-off during the summer of 2020; before the new school year starts, the schedule can be revised to see how she feels; and give her the opportunity to make a decision at that time on where she wants to attend school; that is, to continue attending school in Santa Barbara or going to school in Los Angeles; requests that the Court deny mother’s request for full legal and physical custody of Safari and her request for a move away order.
Jun 16, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624, 134 Cal.Rptr. 602; Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698-699, 32 Cal.Rptr. 288.)” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) “[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a "proper objection" to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. (See Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins.
Jun 12, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
National School of Health Technology, 73 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D.Pa.1977); Harlem River Consumers Co-op v. Associated Growers of Harlem, 64 F.R.D. 459, 463 (S.D.N.Y.1974).) [FN 8.] ¶ FN 8. While current information must be disclosed, common practice is to include a caveat that the party has not completed its investigation, etc. (See Powers, A Guide to Interrogatories, etc. 48 So.Cal.L.Rev. 1221, 1294 (1975).)” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782-783.)
Jun 12, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 624, 134 Cal.Rptr. 602; Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co. (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 698-699, 32 Cal.Rptr. 288.)” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) “[T]he mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a "proper objection" to an item, the necessity of which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. (See Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins.
Jun 12, 2020
El Dorado County, CA
In Hill, we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id. at pp. 35-37.)
Jun 11, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
In Marken, as here, accusations were made against a public-school teacher of sexual misconduct directed toward a student. A parent filed a CPRA request for documents relating to the district’s investigation. The court discussed at length the need to balance the public interest in disclosure of matters of public concern, including accusations of serious misconduct by a teacher, against the teacher’s own privacy interests.
Jun 05, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
As to Defendant’s argument concerning employee privacy, Defendant argues that these requests implicate individual personnel files which fall within the constitutionally protected “zone of privacy.” Defendant broadly asserts this privacy interest, stating that “portions of the contents in a personnel file may contain memoranda that was presumably written by third parties.” (Opp., 7:18-23.)
Mar 17, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Richard E. Rico or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
It does not appear that SEOP is a health care provider, a school, a financial professional, an escrow agent, or a telephone company. It may be that SEOP possesses records of a personal nature belonging to certain individuals who qualify as custodians, but not that those consumers give over personal records expecting the requisite degree of privacy occasioned the identified custodians. Without more information, this Court cannot find that SEOP is a personal consumer records custodian.
Mar 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
The court determines whether disclosure of the information would compromise substantial privacy interests. BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 755. If disclosure only implicates de minimis privacy interests, disclosure does not amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Id. Finally, the court must determine whether the potential harm to the privacy interests outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Mar 12, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff objected on the basis of privacy and relevancy. The information, however, is relevant to the issue of lost profits, as stated above. Plaintiff has not carried its burden of justifying its privacy objection. The motion, then, is granted as to Nos. 8-10. Sanctions SCI seeks an award of sanctions in the amount of $1,160.00 [calculated as follows: 2 hours preparing motion, plus 1 hour preparing reply, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $290.00/hour.].
Mar 12, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
agree in writing to cancel or limit the subpoena, an attorney should be consulted about the employee’s interest in protecting his or her rights of privacy.”
Mar 10, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Case No. SC128933 Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication Plaintiffs Jones are guardians ad litem for their minor child, plaintiff O.J., who has autism spectrum disorder and hyperkinetic syndrome. O.J.’s individual education program (“IEP”) provides services in his class in the defendant Santa Monica-Malibu Unfired School District (“SMMUSD”).
Mar 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In that case, a 15-year old boy was sexually assaulted with a broomstick by three of his teammates on the high school baseball team. His civil claim against the school district was settled without litigation, but the settlement came before the superior court on a petition to approve compromise, pursuant to section 3500 of the Probate Code. The court approved the settlement and approved a stipulation to seal the file, including the data as to the amount of the settlement.
Mar 05, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
