What are the School Record Privacy Laws?

Useful Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

Recent Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

H.K. V. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

GRANADOS V. CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

FLORES V. FORD MOTOR CO.

, secondary school, or postsecondary school . . .”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

JIAYIN LI VS IEG GLOBAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

KATELYN SANCHEZ VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

NOEMI BETANCOURT GUSMAN ET AL VS SUMMIT CARE LLC ET AL

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).

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

N.S. VS ALVORD UNIFIED

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.]

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

LACY R VS GERMAN MEJIA ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

AMY GOLDMAN VS TIMOTHY SCHEY, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADONIS CUTCHLOW VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

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.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SUKUMAR VS. CITY OF CARLSBAD

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NIKKO RENEE MASUYAMA V. VINCENT PETEQUE

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

FLEEMAN V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

AMBER CASTELLON V. VSS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

DOE VS. ACALANES UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

CRUZ CASAS VS VICTORIA CHEUNG, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Richard E. Rico or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BACON VS. SEOP, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

AG ARCADIA, LLC VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITRUS VALLEY FLORIST, INC. VS SCI CALIFORNIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

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.].

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RODOLFO QUIROZ VS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

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.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

O.J. VS SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL

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”).

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

SHEROD VS. CALPINE CORPORATION

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.