What are the School Record Privacy Laws?

Useful Resources for Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

Recent Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP VS ALY ABDELRAHIM

Union High School Dist. (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 720, 725.) As to the June 25, 2018 review, the context in which the comments were made make clear that these assertions reflect a subjective evaluation of Plaintiff based on the anonymous poster’s own experience.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

AMRAM YAHALOM, ET AL. VS NAZARET CHAKRIAN, ET AL.

Muroc Joint Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1066, 1086-87.) As such, sustaining the demurrer does not deprive Plaintiffs of the ability to pursue a general negligence claim by proof of negligence per se and if Plaintiffs really are alleging negligence, Plaintiffs must properly allege all the elements.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AYALA-HERNANDEZ VS ELSEA

California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 41.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

JANE DOE VS HENDERSON WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym violates the public’s First Amendment Right to disclosure and access, and that should Plaintiff have any legitimate concerns about her privacy, she should have filed her SAC under seal. Defendants do not substantiate either argument.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.

The court makes the following findings of facts that establish the requirements set forth in CRC Rule 2.550(d): (1) There exists an overriding interest in protecting the privacy of plaintiff, a minor sexual abuse victim, the privacy of other TUSD children on the school’s premises, and sensitive law enforcement records that were produced for the investigation of those acts of childhood sexual assault.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JO F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

The California Supreme Court “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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

YORBA LINDA MCCORMACK BUSINESS PARK PARTNERSHIP VS. ASSOCIATION HEAD & NECK SURGEONS OF GREATER ORANGE COUNTY, INC.

However, privacy protections are not absolute, and in each case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery, and may order disclosure if a “compelling public interest” would be served by doing so. (Id. at Section 8:294, citing Britt v. Superior Court, supra, and John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

NATHANAEL KAMER VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Kamer accepted responsibility for violations of Section VII (Z) (Violations of the University of California Privacy Policy)/Recordings, photographs, or media streams and Section VII (Z) (Violations of the University of California Privacy Policy)/Looking into a private location. AR 73.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KIESLING VS BUNETA

On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, assault, stalking, IIED, NIED, invasion of privacy, electronic eavesdropping and negligence. The moving defendants have filed a special motion to strike pursuant to CCP § 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIESLING VS BUNETA

On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, assault, stalking, IIED, NIED, invasion of privacy, electronic eavesdropping and negligence. The moving defendants have filed a special motion to strike pursuant to CCP § 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIESLING VS BUNETA

On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, assault, stalking, IIED, NIED, invasion of privacy, electronic eavesdropping and negligence. Defendant challenges the allegations in paragraphs 28, 42, 45, 47, 59-61, 67, 71, 75-78, 80, 103 of the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIESLING VS BUNETA

On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, assault, stalking, IIED, NIED, invasion of privacy, electronic eavesdropping and negligence. The moving defendants have filed a special motion to strike pursuant to CCP § 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIESLING VS BUNETA

On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, assault, stalking, IIED, NIED, invasion of privacy, electronic eavesdropping and negligence. The moving defendants have filed a special motion to strike pursuant to CCP § 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIESLING VS BUNETA

On August 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, assault, stalking, IIED, NIED, invasion of privacy, electronic eavesdropping and negligence. Defendant challenges the allegations in paragraphs 28, 42, 45, 47, 59-61, 67, 71, 75-78, 80, 103 of the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Nov 24, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 20, 2020

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

    Nov 17, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 17, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 12, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 05, 2020

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

    Nov 04, 2020

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

    Nov 03, 2020

  • 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

    Nov 03, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 30, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.