What are the School Record Privacy Laws?

Useful Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

Recent Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

CATHERINE BRUNI VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

Petitioner asserts that she made this false statement off duty and in order to protect her son’s privacy. As discussed, although Petitioner made the statement off duty, she did so when reporting Department-related business to a supervisor (execution of a search warrant at an APD officer’s home.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KRAFVE VS. KARFVE

Furthermore, defendant fails to show that she and B.K. have an overriding privacy interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, or that supports sealing the entirety of the Complaint, and the proposed sealing of the entire Complaint is not narrowly tailored. (California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibits D, I, and O pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

  • Hearing

E C VS EAST WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff EC, then a 9-year old special needs student, was sexually assaulted in Defendant’s school bathroom by another student on at least four occasions. Plaintiff seeks the performance evaluations within the past 5 years of Jeff Fullerton (Plaintiff’s teacher) and any aids. The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a compelling state interest.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARDEN GATE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CATHERINE WELLS

“We conclude that the litigation privilege applies even to a constitutionally based privacy cause of action.” “Jacob B. v. County of Shasta (2007) 40 Cal.4th 948, 961.” See Rusheen v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRED DAILEY VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

This request seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the Constitutional Right to Privacy of third parties, who have not consented to the disclosure of their privileged information. This interrogatory requires Plaintiff to adopt Defendant’s position that Plaintiff was required to communicate his preference.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL BLUMENKRANTZ VS BB LAW GROUP, LLP, ET AL.

He presents no evidence of “highly offensive” representations sufficient to support defamation or invasion of privacy claims. Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1264. Finally, plaintiff presents no evidence defendants’ conduct was “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society,” as required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2017) 229 Cal.App.4th 144, 160.

  • Hearing

MATTHEW JACQUES VS THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

Encinal School Parent Teacher Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 468-469). A claim has “minimal merit” if it is “both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the [nonmoving party] is credited.” (Gruber v. Gruber (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 529, 537, citation omitted.)

  • Hearing

JOHN DOE VS FACEY MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages: Moot Pseudonym: Denied without Prejudice The parties both agree that the use of the use of pseudonyms derives from the protection of privacy interests.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JASON ROSENBAUM VS MUFG UNION BANK NA

(Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 947-49.) No. 4: OVERRULED. Relevant. Goes to weight. Permissible opinion of counsel. The lack of authentication or foundation may be remedied before trial. (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 947-49.) No. 5: OVERRULED. Best Evidence Rule was repealed in 1998. Hearsay exception—authorized admission of party opponent. Permissible opinion of counsel. No. 6: OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

J.E. A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, TITUS EBUBECHUKWU VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, BY AND THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, ET AL.

Plaintiff J.E. was allegedly placed in a foster home with foster parent Betty Bourdland (“Bourdland”) from approximately May 13, 2015 through March 15, 2017, where he allegedly was kept at home without any registration or school attendance for over 8 months and allegedly suffered abuse, including sexual molestation and deprivation of adequate nutrition and heat. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 30, 54.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff alleged his issue is solely with the Department’s not taking steps to provide facilities for both genders in order to protect his privacy and the privacy of other firefighters. (SAC ¶26.) Plaintiff alleged he was released back to work on May 2, 2017, and by doctor’s orders was restricted from working at Station 103.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ELVIRA JERONIMO, ET AL. VS JEAN-PAUL CHIARI, ET AL.

Plaintiffs now move to quash Defendants’ subpoenas for Plaintiff’s high school and employment records served on Estacia High School, Balboa Bay Resort, and AC Hotel Irvine. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas fir High School and Employment Records Parties’ Positions Plaintiffs argue that Brayan Jeronimo (“Brayan”) is claiming the accident caused injuries to his back, right leg, and right foot, and that Brayan is not making a claim for lost earnings.

  • Hearing

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff alleged his issue is solely with the Department’s not taking steps to provide facilities for both genders in order to protect his privacy and the privacy of other firefighters. (SAC ¶26.) Plaintiff alleged he was released back to work on May 2, 2017, and by doctor’s orders was restricted from working at Station 103.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALFRED ANYIA, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.) Government Code section 815.2 provides that a public entity is vicariously liable for the torts of their employees committed within the scope of employment if the employee is liable. (See Govt. Code § 815.2(a); Chambi v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 822, 827; Hoff, supra, 19 Cal.4th at 932.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY VS RICARDO LARA

See, e.g., Bassett Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence, (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1444, 1456-57 (Education Code provision construed to allow a teacher to recover all expenses of attorney’s fees and costs at all levels of the litigation process, including the superior and appellate courts, where he or she prevails). This is a contractual attorney’s fee case, but one based on section 1717’s doctrine of mutuality.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS JOHN VITALE, ET AL.

A plaintiff may use a pseudonym where: (1) identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter that is sensitive and highly personal; or (3) the party wishing to remain anonymous would be compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in unlawful conduct thus subjecting oneself to criminal prosecution. (Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 767.)

  • Hearing

LAMPLEY V. A COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS, INC.

Hart Union High School District (C.A.) (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872, provides, “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged. [Citation.]” Defendants’ challenge the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivisions (e) and (f).

  • Hearing

DOE VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The court must balance Plaintiff’s right to discovery against the privacy interests of defendants Singleton and Goins. (See Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37 (Hill).) First, the court must determine whether Singleton and Goins have a legally protected privacy interest that is objectively reasonable. (Ibid.) Next, the court must determine whether the requested discovery is a serious threatened intrusion. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

KAYLEIGH TANKSLEY DOWSE VS. ADAMSON AUTOMOTIVE

But in Copley Press the minor's claim was against a school district for damages resulting from violent sexual abuse of the minor at the school – conduct far more sensitive than alleged here. In denying the request to seal the records relating to the minor's claim in Copley, the court explained a petition to compromise the minor's claim is a public proceeding. (Copley Press v. Superior Court, supra, 63 Cal. App. 4th at 376.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

However, the original Complaint appears to only allege violation of his right to free movement, privacy and right not to be made subject to bodily harm generally. (Complaint, ¶ 2, handwritten attachment.)

  • Hearing

PADRON V. BELTRAN

Invasion of Privacy Defendant has defined and argues concerning one form of the tort of invasion of privacy, but there are actually four versions of this tort: 1) intrusion into private affairs; 2) public disclosure of private facts (which defendant discusses); 3) placing the plaintiff in a false light; and 4) appropriation of plaintiff’s name or likeness. More than one type of privacy tort can apply to a particular fact situation. (Fairfield v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

RETROVIROX INC VS THE SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367, in which 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHRISTIAN FUHRER, ET AL. VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Beverly Hills Unified School District, et al.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE HC DOE, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GAURDIAN AD LITEM KIM S. VS TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.