School Record Privacy Laws in California

What Are School Record Privacy Laws?

“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.)

Under Statutory Law

“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, § 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.)

Under the Constitution

The right to privacy is expressly guaranteed by Article 1, § 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 §§ 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.

Definition of “Pupil Records”

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).)”

Under Education Code Sec. 49076

“(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 § 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 § 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.”

Case Law on Point

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 §§ 49061 and 49076.” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 754-755.)

Rulings for Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws in California

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. ( Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

  • Name

    ERIC JONES VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    20STCV43019

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Dos Pueblos High School.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE VS SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    21CV01542

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2021

DISCUSSION: There is “a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy.” (Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [citing Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1, 35].) “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.” (Williams, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)

  • Name

    ZAMBRANO VS OM FITNESS LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CV021396

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2024

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Scott objects to public disclosurenot discovery by plaintiffof his personnel records based on his right to 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. ( Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 ( Williams ).)

  • Name

    JANE C.R. DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV13174

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Then, the requesting party may show which legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. ( Ibid. ) In this case, parties do not dispute there is a right to privacy in a minor students school records.

  • Name

    L.R., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM JENNIFER BUTLER VS SUSAN AROZLA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV01296

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Because plaintiff’s work experience is limited, defendant argues that plaintiff’s high school records are relevant and outweigh any invasion of plaintiff’s privacy rights.

  • Name

    ELVIRA SEJA VS VIRGINIA MCCOOL

  • Case No.

    1403045

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2013

In the trial court, the school district successfully asserted it was immune from liability under Education Code section 44808. There have been no changes in that statute since it was enacted in 1976. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of the school, citing Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 508, 517, fnt. 2: “That the ‘reasonable care’ exception in the statute is not accidental is clear from the legislative history.

  • Name

    LOGOLUSO V. CUSD

  • Case No.

    15CECG00077

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints made by anyone RELATING TO SEXUAL MISCONDUCT at Norwalk High School for the time period of January 1, 2013 to the present. ( Plaintiff will accept redacted copies of said DOCUMENTS to protect the privacy of individuals who are not a party to this action ). · No. 18.

  • Name

    JOHN CM DOE, ET AL. VS NORWALK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV10390

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Defendant Van Duyne’s motions to quash subpoenas (re: Whittier Union High School and Bonita Unified School District) are DENIED. No sanctions. Defendant Van Duyne moves to quash plaintiff’s subpoenas duces tecum for records claiming they are not relevant and violates his privacy rights. Here, defendant Van Duyne contends that the subpoenas seek irrelevant records belonging to a subsequent employer.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC654038

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2019

The California Supreme Court has described the manner to address privacy concerns in the context of discovery disputes as follows: 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.

  • Name

    DOE VS GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00046947-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2024

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

ARGUMENTS On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for production on Defendant, Los Angeles Unified School Districts (LAUSD), of documents concerning insurance policies covering Plaintiffs claims and the personnel file of Ira Wright. Defendant objected on grounds of relevance and privacy of its former employee. In opposition, LAUSD argues that the employment and personnel records of Defendant, Ira Lindsay Wright, is protected from disclosure by privacy.

  • Name

    JANE DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DOE #1, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CMCV00240

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Where the right to privacy is asserted as a protection against discovery, the person raising the objection must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

  • Name

    S. B. VS. OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01029302-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

Case Summary At essence, this is a putative class action for invasion of privacy. In this matter, Plaintiffs seek to represent female students who attended Los Osos High School, located within Defendant School District (District), during the time period that Defendant Riden (Riden), who was a locker room attendant and assistant coach, placed at least one hidden camera in the girls’ bathroom.

  • Case No.

    2128630

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2023

  • County

    San Bernardino County, CA

Mummy’s educator disciplinary records against his right of privacy the balance tips in favor of disclosure. The allegations of the Complaint accuse Mr. Mummy of very inappropriate conduct with a student at school and that defendant School District was liable for such conduct under several theories of liability. Teachers appear to have little, if any, reasonable expectation of privacy in disciplinary records maintained by the credentialing enforcement arm of the Executive Branch of the State.

  • Name

    DOE V. EL DORADO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIST.

  • Case No.

    PC-20180052

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

Pappalardo was a former employee of Glendale Unified School District, and Clark Junior High School was a junior high school operated by and under the control of GUSD. Plaintiff met Pappalardo when she was in the 9 th grade at Clark Junior High School.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS ROE 1, A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    21STCV11367

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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. Defendants clearly have privacy interests in Tyler’s school records and in matters discussed with school administrators. However, the right to privacy does not provide absolute protection against disclosure of personal information.

  • Name

    WOLFGANG SCHULZ ET AL VS TYLER FOURMY ET AL

  • Case No.

    1373884

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2012

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.

  • Name

    ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    22CV02266

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.

  • Name

    ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    22CV02266

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.

  • Name

    ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    22CV02266

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012), 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1261–1262, fns. omitted.

  • Name

    ROBERT KITTLE VS CABRILLO COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    22CV02266

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2023

  • County

    Santa Cruz County, CA

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.” ( Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 552.)

  • Name

    ANDREA POMA VS BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    21STCV13266

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(“Plaintiff”), a minor, by Defendant Brian Davis (“Davis”), an employee at an after-school program ran by Defendants Los Angeles Conservation Corps, Inc. (“LACC”) and Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”). At the time of the assault, Plaintiff was 15 years old. Plaintiff alleges that beginning in March 2017, Plaintiff was regularly volunteering to assist younger students with their studies at her younger sister’s elementary school, Normandy Avenue Elementary School (the “School”).

  • Name

    AZALEA C VS LOS ANGELES CONSERVATION CORPS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC712075

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

And so, absent discovery of what the school did know through a review of records, a sexual assault victim would be completely hamstrung in his or her efforts to establish a "traditional" school sexual assault case which does not involve the special Jennifer C. circumstances. Meanwhile, the affected students do have privacy rights which need to be protected and honored.

  • Name

    SARA THOMAS VS. VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    56-2008-00324212-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2009

After balancing plaintiff’s right to privacy against the defendant’s right to discover facts necessary to defend the claim, the court finds that the defendant’s right to discovery outweighs plaintiff’s right to privacy. By filing this lawsuit plaintiff has placed his alleged learning disability in issue. Plaintiff has testified in deposition that he was diagnosed with a learning disability in school many years ago and has had no treatment since that time.

  • Name

    ULLOA VS CONAM MANAGEMENT CORP

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00977401-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

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, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.)

  • Name

    MARIA SERRATO ET AL VS PI KAPPA PHI FRATERNITY INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC586769

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2018

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Viewpoint has not raised any other privacy interest furthered by its request. But Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 has filed an opposition to Viewpoint’s request, and asks that the facts contained in the record be open to the public. (Opposition p. 2-3.) That is, the person whose privacy interests are affected by the request — indeed the only privacy interest that Viewpoint has proposed — objects to Viewpoint’s request.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS ROE 1 ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC577990

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2017

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, the Supreme Court held that in evaluating potential invasions of privacy, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances and a threatened intrusion that is serious. Defendant has not met this burden.

  • Name

    JANE B A DOE VS SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC640307

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2018

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

privacy concerns.”

  • Name

    JANE B M DOE ET AL VS EL MONTE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

  • Case No.

    BC619299

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

Privacy The facts requested do not constitute a serious invasion of privacy, and Plaintiffs need for the information outweighs any privacy concerns, which can also be addressed by a protective order. (See Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 38.) c.

  • Name

    KRISTINA TURPIN VS LEARNING WITH A DIFFERENCE, INC.

  • Case No.

    21STCV07398

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

'A school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to any person without written parental consent or under judicial order' ..." Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1396, citing Ed.C. §49076 ["A school district shall not permit access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order." Ed.C. §49076(a)] The Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act recognizes a right of privacy in student records.

  • Name

    GREEN VS CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00044230-CU-CR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

The Petitioner argues that his privacy interests will be violated if the report if released. The Regents acknowledges that Petitioner has a privacy in interest in that record. However, the Regency asserts that Petitioner's privacy interest is outweighed by the strong public policy supporting transparency in government and public interest in disclosure of the record. Authorities: Pursuant to Gov.

  • Name

    POLEQUAPTEWA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00906021-CU-WM-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2017

Defendants’ request #48 seeks “Any and all documents evidencing the date Plaintiff completed school at Calaveras High School in Milpitas.” This request seeks some relevant information but is overbroad because it includes irrelevant pictures of graduation ceremonies, transcripts of grades, and like material.

  • Case No.

    FCS057724

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2023

  • County

    Solano County, CA

As to privacy, the court has conducted the required balancing, and the court finds that the ascertainment of truth is an important countervailing interest that overrides Defendant’s privacy objection. Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (Michael Cardoza) Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to United States Truck Driving School (filed on 8-21-18) The court does not award sanctions.

  • Name

    HUEY V. CARDOZA

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00932914-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC704012 Hearing Date: February 7, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Plaintiff’s Motions to compel further responses Plaintiff Miguel Urrutia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Pasadena Unified School District and several employees (“Defendants”) after he was assaulted by a fellow student.

  • Name

    MIGUEL URRUTIA VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC704012

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

Fourth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy A claim for invasion of privacy must be based on 1) a legally protected privacy interest; 2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances; and 3) defendant's serious invasion of privacy. Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1129. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot allege a claim for invasion of privacy based solely on disclosure of their daughter’s name because “the right of privacy is a purely personal one.”

  • Name

    DISNEY, TIM VS CAMELOT KIDS CHILD DEVELOPMENT

  • Case No.

    15K12272

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Rather, the motion explains Petitioner’s position that the Unify subpoena invades his and his wife’s constitutional right to financial privacy. Respondent’s position on Petitioner’s privacy objections is unclear. (See Oppo. 9:22 [terse reference to Petitioner’s privacy objections].) Respondent should elaborate its position at the hearing. Subject to oral argument, the court analyzes Petitioner’s privacy objections as follows.

  • Name

    ARMANDO GOMEZ VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

  • Case No.

    21STCP01639

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

Los AngeIes Unified School Dist. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 123 the court observed: “The law regarding the duty of supervision on school premises is very, very well established. “It is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection. [Citations.]

  • Name

    DOE V. THORPE

  • Case No.

    SCV-260923

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2018

The privacy objections are overruled. The information called for in this request does not implicate the privacy interest of any third party, and even if it did, the need for the information would substantially outweigh any privacy interest. The interrogatory seeks information that is directly relevant here. The court specifically overrules the objection under FERPA, and orders that the interrogatory be answered fully.

  • Name

    EDWIN NOLASCO VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV02062

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Plaintiff asserts he attended a high school in Moreno Valley Unified School District (“District”). The school allegedly knew that Plaintiff was to ride the bus home on November 19, 2021. Plaintiff contends that school personnel were aware that Plaintiff did not get on the bus and instead walked away from the bus. No one from the District followed Plaintiff, informed Plaintiff’s family of this fact, or contacted the police. This resulted in Plaintiff getting lost.

  • Name

    ENRIQUEZ VS MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    CVRI2203498

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2024

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

As to the third-party privacy right objection, the Court finds that the privacy right of the third parties can be adequately protected by the redaction of any identifying information, as pointed out in Lopez. In request No. 40, moving Plaintiff requested “[t]he SCHOOL yearbook for each year that YOU assigned SALES to coach at the SCHOOL.” SAUSD did not produce any of the responsive documents.

  • Name

    CRONSTEDT V. JONES

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00958493-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2019

Plaintiff has not explained how documents concerning any police involvement at the school for the last five years is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, reports of break-ins or drug dealing at the school are not relevant to the alleged assault here. Likewise, Plaintiff has not shown that all assaults and batteries at the school in the last five years are discoverable, especially given the other students’ privacy rights.

  • Name

    LUISA JOHNSON, ET AL. VS SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    19STCV08150

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP § 2017.220; MOTION GRANTED April 1, 2016, Plaintiff Janet Roe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants David Park (“Park”), Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (“School District”), and Cheli McReynolds (“McReynolds”) for negligence per se and battery as to Park and negligent supervision as to School District and McReynolds.

  • Name

    JANET ROE VS DAVID PARK ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC615789

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

Thus, discovery further information regarding Plaintiffs cognitive abilities in high school prior to the incident would be relevant to Defendants evaluation of the case. Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs privacy claim is unpersuasive. While the subpoenas seek all records, Plaintiff fails to explain how they constitute a fishing expedition.

  • Name

    JOHNNY GARCIA VS MYT HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.

  • Case No.

    21STCV09219

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2022

Therefore, the likelihood that her high school and college grades will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pertinent to this claim is too low to justify the invasion of privacy.

  • Name

    KIMBERLEY OCADIZ VS CYNTHIA LOPEZ

  • Case No.

    21STCV09963

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(D) Invasion of Privacy Almasoudi’s fourth cause of action is for invasion of privacy against both Terrence and Aaron. The Calbows do not argue that Almasoudi does not state a cause of action against Aaron. “While invasion of privacy takes several forms, ‘the tort of intrusion into private places, conversations or matter is perhaps the one that best captures the common understanding of an “invasion of privacy.”

  • Name

    FADIA ALMASOUDI V. EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    15CV02343

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2016

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions to quash subpoenas for Chaffey High School and Chaffey Adult School. Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such. [1] Plaintiff asserts that confidential personnel files are protected but does not explain whether education files are included in that category. (Motion, 6.) Nonetheless, the parties appear to agree that Plaintiff has a privacy interest in his educational records.

  • Name

    FERNANDO CERVANTES VS POSTMATES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV15897

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Here, Plaintiff is seeking personnel records, private communications of nonparties and information on individual school district employees or officials. Defendant objects on ground that the requests violate the named individual’s rights to privacy. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient reason for invading the privacy rights of the individuals.

  • Name

    LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    RIC1904220

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2021

Galt Joint Union Elementary School District 01/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Production in Department 53 As to the scope of the requests, the Court finds it especially overbroad given the employees’ right to privacy as to their personnel files. “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.”

  • Case No.

    34-2023-00335839-CU-PO-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2024

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

(“Erskine”), Mary Arens (“Arens”), and Oscar McBride (“McBride”) (collectively “Defendants”) seek an order from the Court quashing the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”) served by Plaintiff Claire Menjivar (“Plaintiff”) on Third-Party Servite High School (“Servite”) on the grounds: (1) Plaintiff seeks to obtain confidential information in violation of Defendant McBride’s right to privacy, and the privacy right of third parties, as to his former employment records; (2) the Subpoena

  • Name

    MENJIVAR VS. ERSKINIE LAW GROUP, P.C.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01098849

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2021

In California the right to privacy is guaranteed in the State Constitution. California Constitution, Article I, Section I provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” This constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a “compelling” and opposing state interest, such as the need for discovery in legal proceedings. (See Board of Trustees v.

  • Name

    M D VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC574425

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2017

  • Judge

    Brian S. Currey or John A. Slawson

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

But City has not made that showing as to other aspects of Plaintiffs educational records, such as school discipline, school medical records, staff comments, attendance records, and admission records. Plaintiff has not identified any feasible alternatives that would serve the same interests and diminish the loss of privacy.

  • Name

    SAMUEL STRINGER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV33735

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2024

In California, the right to privacy is guaranteed in the State Constitution. California Constitution, Art. I, § I provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” This constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged when there is a “compelling” and opposing state interest, such as the need for discovery in legal proceedings. (See Board of Trustees v.

  • Name

    M W VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC635938

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff has an overriding privacy interest. The judicial use of Doe plaintiffs to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web. ( Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.) Plaintiffs may use a fictitious name when necessary to protect their privacy rights, including in actions alleging sexual assault. (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531; Doe v.

  • Name

    V. B. VS DOE 1

  • Case No.

    22STCV20461

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff has an overriding privacy interest. The judicial use of Doe plaintiffs to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World Wide Web. ( Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.) Plaintiffs may use a fictitious name when necessary to protect their privacy rights, including in actions alleging sexual assault. (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531; Doe v.

  • Name

    W. G. VS DOE 1

  • Case No.

    22STCV19787

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Employment records are generally covered by the constitutional right of privacy. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528, disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 (“Williams”).) “[T]he right to privacy protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370.)

  • Name

    A. VS RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    CVRI2204657

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2024

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Jane Doe and John Doe, minors appearing through their guardians at litem, allege that while they were students at defendant Miramonte Elementary School, in defendant Mountain View School District, they were sexually abused, molested and harassed by defendant Joseph Baldenebro, who was employed by the District and assigned to teach at the school.

  • Name

    JANE DOE ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC712514

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

Whatever their common denominator, privacy interests are best assessed separately and in context. Just as the right to privacy is not absolute, privacy interests do not encompass all conceivable assertions of individual rights.

  • Name

    Z., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, BARRY POZNICK P., ET AL. VS MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV25462

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22VECV01431

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thus, “a school would not be subject to sanctions for disclosure of education records covered by FERPA when such disclosure was made pursuant to a judicial order. Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School Dist. (2008) 549 F.Supp.2d 288, 292-93. The relevant inquiry then is whether Plaintiff has met her burden to show that her interest in obtaining the requested records outweighs the relevant privacy interests. Id., at 293. The Court finds that Plaintiff has met that burden.

  • Name

    JANE JS DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

  • Case No.

    BC568601

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2016

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 – i.e., a serious invasion of Lopez's privacy rights. "Actionable invasions of privacy must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right." Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 37. Here, no evidence has been submitted by Lopez or the District defendants regarding the nature, scope, or impact of the disclosure.

  • Name

    MULLINS VS MAR VISTA HIGH SCHOOL

  • Case No.

    37-2021-00009606-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

at 539 -543 [summarizing case law and concluding public high school teachers privacy interests in disposition letters outweighed publics minimal interest in matter]; see also Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at 1275-76 [balancing of interests weighed in favor of disclosure of investigation and disciplinary records of a public high school teacher].)

  • Name

    22STCP02191

  • Case No.

    22STCP02191

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

International High School need not provide any further responses to interrogatories 1-4 and 15-18 because there is no discovery relevance for the information sought in those interrogatories beyond what International High School has provided and/or the information sought in those interrogatories is protected by the right of privacy under the California Constitution and Mr. Knoop has not shown that the additional information he seeks is directly relevant to his claims.

  • Name

    LAURA ALBERT ET AL VS. INTERNATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14541111

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2017

Although Education Code section 49076 applies to school districts, it also shows the state’s recognition of a student’s right to privacy in her or his educational records. Based on the above, students have a right to privacy in their educational records. Respondent contends that the (AR), filed with the court under seal, contains student education records. (Johnson Decl, ¶ 2.)

  • Name

    DO V. FUGITT

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00916260-CU-WM-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2018

The court notes plaintiff appears to have abandoned any claim, made during the meet and confer process, that these academic records are protected under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Rights Act. Pipeline Restoration Subpoena Defendants concede the subpoena is overbroad to the extent it includes requests for some items that improperly invade plaintiff’s right to privacy.

  • Name

    CANNON V. DONALDSON ()

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00909711-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

While the minor J.W. has a significant privacy interest in these 4 category of records, so too does plaintiff have a substantial interest in discovering relevant information regarding whether J.W. had assaulted, sexually or otherwise, any other persons prior to her alleged rape, which were known to defendant Roseville City School District.

  • Name

    P.C. V. ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0044454

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2021

  • County

    Placer County, CA

“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. [Citations.]” ( Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.) Defendant San Gabriel Unified School District (“SGUSD”) contends that the requested information is relevant to plaintiff’s credibility concerning why she resigned from her prior position as a school psychologist for the Los Angeles County Office of Education (“LACOE”).

  • Name

    SARAH AXUME VS SAN GABRIEL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV05768

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

· [Referring to an e-mail marked as exhibit 10] It makes reference to – to Debbie Reed having a conversation with you, and Debbie Reed characterizes that conversation by saying – and with the school’s lawyer, but she says: “Neither the head of school nor the school lawyers (sic) agree.” And to put it in context, she says that Mikaela’s mom believes that Joe Koetters’s behavior was inappropriate with her daughter. “Neither the head of school nor the school’s lawyer” – “lawyers agree.”

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS ROE 1 ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC577990

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2017

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.

  • Name

    JO F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC646534

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court notes that this issue may be amenable to an opt-in type letter as is some times requested in Elder Abuse cases to address the third party privacy concerns.

  • Name

    CASANDRA LIZBETH LOPEZ ET AL VS MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

  • Case No.

    BC593990

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The risk of retaliation and/or violating privacy rights outweighs the disclosure of names and identifies. The motion is denied.

  • Name

    PETITION OF BURGESS

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00035086-CU-WM-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

(“Plaintiff”) through his guardian ad litem Anthony Fonseca filed the instant action against Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”), Rachael Kamiya (“Kamiya”), arising out of an incident that occurred while Plaintiff was attending school and under Defendants’ care and supervision.

  • Name

    A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC720290

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2021

Plaintiffs also allege defendant directly retaliated against plaintiffs in April 2016 at the school board meeting. Defendant's argument that a plaintiff must first prove a valid complaint of sexual harassment is not a correct statement of the law. 3. Invasion of Privacy. The complaint alleges a cause of action for invasion of privacy only as to plaintiff Davis arising from Huerta’s alleged unauthorized access to Davis’s personnel file.

  • Name

    DAVIS VS. ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00873602-CU-JR-CXC

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2016

Plaintiff argues that no privacy right is violated as there is no constitutional right to privacy held by an entity; that Cal. Evid.

  • Name

    JANE BOS DOE VS BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A BUSINESS ENTITY OF FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21AVCV00289

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

  • Name

    DEBORAH JOHNSON VS BERRI'S KITCHEN HOLLYWOOD, LLC

  • Case No.

    18STCV06731

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

“The party claiming a violation of the constitutional right of privacy established in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) a serious invasion of the privacy interest.” (Int’l Fed’n of Prof’l & Technical Eng’rs, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 338.)

  • Name

    RADHA JAGASIA VS DAGO TORRES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC632722

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2018

Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing that the seriousness of any prospective privacy invasion outweighs Defendant’s right to discover information relevant to her claimed injuries.

  • Name

    REYES VS A & Y PROPERTIES

  • Case No.

    CVRI2100291

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Thus, “a school would not be subject to sanctions for disclosure of education records covered by FERPA when such disclosure was made pursuant to a judicial order. Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School Dist. (2008) 549 F.Supp.2d 288, 292-93. The relevant inquiry then is whether Plaintiff has met her burden to show that her interest in obtaining the requested records outweighs the relevant privacy interests. Id., at 293.

  • Name

    JANE JS DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

  • Case No.

    BC568601

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2016

Plaintiff Cintron testified in her deposition that she was diagnosed with depression in high school and a learning disability in elementary school. Records obtained by Defendants indicate Plaintiff experienced anxiety in college. Plaintiff Cintron argues that the information is protected by her privacy rights and her pre-accident baseline can be evaluated through less invasive means of discovery.

  • Name

    MAURINA MARILU CINTRON, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV30736

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

District and Apple Valley Unified School District.

  • Name

    DOE V. TOWNSEND

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01107164

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2021

South Pasadena Unified School District, et al.

  • Name

    JANE CS DOE VS SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV11914

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Disclosure of that information would invade Toner’s third-party privacy rights in the details of his personnel file and his former employment. The court finds that Defendant High School has complied with the procedural requirements of CRC 2.551. The court also finds that the High School has shown that the 5 criteria set forth in CRC 2.550 (d) have been met.

  • Name

    OSCAR MCBRIDE VS. SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00981456-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

This case arises out of an alleged series of escalating sexual batteries by a school official (Bassinne) upon a middle-school student back in 2010. Before the Court this day is plaintiff’s motion to compel the district to provide a further response a request for production of documents. The issue revolves around the school official’s personnel file, and relates to plaintiff’s tort claims for direct (supervision, retention) and vicarious (respondeat superior) negligence.

  • Name

    DOE G.F. V. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01012506-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

Motion to Compel Defendant Perris DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH Union High School District's Further CVRI2202641 SCHOOL DISTRICT Responses to Request for Production of Documents by JOHN DOE Tentative Ruling: On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff, John Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Perris Union High School District (“PUSD”) and Gerardo Regalado (“Regalado”) for personal injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse

  • Name

    DOE VS PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202641

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Motion to Compel Defendant Perris DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH Union High School District's Further CVRI2202641 SCHOOL DISTRICT Responses to Request for Production of Documents by JOHN DOE Tentative Ruling: On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff, John Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Perris Union High School District (“PUSD”) and Gerardo Regalado (“Regalado”) for personal injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse

  • Name

    DOE VS PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202641

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Motion to Compel Defendant Perris DOE vs PERRIS UNION HIGH Union High School District's Further CVRI2202641 SCHOOL DISTRICT Responses to Request for Production of Documents by JOHN DOE Tentative Ruling: On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff, John Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Perris Union High School District (“PUSD”) and Gerardo Regalado (“Regalado”) for personal injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse

  • Name

    DOE VS PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202641

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The subpoena seeks RRR's entire file related to some of the Plaintiffs, specifically "(1) Cheap Easy Online Traffic School, (2) Cheap Easy On-like Traffic School Pension Plan, (3) the Cheap Easy On-line Profit Sharing Plan, (4) Easy On Line Traffic School.Com, Inc., (5) the Marla Keller Pension Plan, and/or (6) the Marla Keller 401(k) Plan." The subpoena does not seek individual tax returns for any individual.

  • Name

    CHEAP EASY ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL VS PETER L HUNTTING & CO INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00042558-CU-NP-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

It is unquestionably true that important privacy interests are involved here. With respect to parent privacy, the nondisclosure of parent emails preserves the ability of parents to correspond freely with school administrators regarding matters affecting their minor child while at school. If such communications were made public, it might deter parents from communicating with administrators, which could leave important student issues unidentified and unaddressed.

  • Name

    JUDY ROBERTS VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

  • Case No.

    VENCI00537867

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2021

Hart Union High School District RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Gabriella H.

  • Name

    GABRIELLA H., A MINOR VS THE WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN AND, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV23863

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Defendant Zoe Gammon has a privacy right in her education records and in her medical records. "The right to privacy, however, is not absolute. In appropriate circumstances, this right must be balanced against other important interests. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 37, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633.) 'On occasion [a party's] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent's right to a fair trial.

  • Name

    BROWN VS GAMMON

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00038418-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

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.

  • Name

    E C VS EAST WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC704205

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

I can't because of student privacy. I think you did ask her relative to Inri, and she answered. But there is student privacy; he's a minor; there are special educational issues, medical privacy issues; and I don't think that's contemplated in the protective order at all. And I don't think that was contemplated by the Court in ordering these responses.” (See Mot. at Ex. F [Tucker Depo. at 106:15-20, 106:25-107:6.)

  • Name

    INRI COBA VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC677307

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

While Defendant did not specifically cite to the Education Code, it does provide that a school district is not authorized to permit access to pupil records to a person without parental consent or a judicial order. ( Ed. Code, § 49076 (a). Confidential records and privacy are protected by the states Constitution. ( Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757 .)

  • Name

    EDWIN NOLASCO VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV02062

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The third party students have a significant privacy interest in their name and contact information under the immediate circumstances. These unnamed students have a reasonable expectation in the privacy of their identity and contact information at school, given that these students were likely minors at the time they were under Mr. Rowell’s instruction and the extremely sensitive nature of the information plaintiff likely seeks to obtain from them.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS. RICHARD ROWELL

  • Case No.

    20CECG03668

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

The subpoenas as issued are extremely broad, seeking all school records pertaining to Thornton, including not only matters such as dates of attendance, degrees obtained and PhD dissertation, but school transcripts, disciplinary records, expulsion and suspension records, and medical records.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA CAUBLE ET AL VS RIDGEVIEW DRIVE RANCH INC

  • Case No.

    BC679638

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

Her theory against the District is that it negligently allowed plaintiff "to use school computers to go to online "chat rooms" where she met defendant CALICA" (who then lured her into the school parking lots for sex). Id., paragraph 24. She further alleges that "it is below the standard of care for school principals and administrators to allow students to utilize school computers without supervision." Id. The initial complaint was filed in late 2017.

  • Name

    C E VS SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00046020-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

Plaintiff alleges that he was a kindergarten student at Defendant Bellflower Unified School District (“BUSD”) from September 2016 to March 2017. Plaintiff alleges that approximately two weeks prior to March 17, 2017, an unknown student physically restrained Plaintiff during physical education instructional time in the school yard of Stephen Foster Elementary School. Plaintiff alleges that, while he was restrained, another student pulled down his pants and sexually abused him.

  • Name

    IB ET AL VS BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC668253

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2019

In this instance, there is no reliable alternate source to discover similar complaints from other minors involving defendant other than to seek them out from the school or the police. Thus, to the extent the subpoenas invade privacy, they are not to be quashed. However, asking for arrests and bookings and “criminal activities” untethered to interactions with minors does indeed go far afield.

  • Name

    JANE OB DOE VS SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV03946

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2021

Party: Non-oppositions filed by defendants Marlborough School and Viewpoint School Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 4/8/15. On 8/24/16, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS ROE 1 ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC577990

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

Santa Monica-Malibu School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, where disclosure of the school district’s investigation into allegations against a teacher was warranted under the California public records act because there was a public interest in knowing how the school district handled such matters, which outweighed the teacher’s privacy rights. (Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at 1274.)

  • Name

    VICTOR MEJIA ET AL VS LYNWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC657254

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order that will cover the privacy concerns Defendant Bonita Unified School District raised and submit a proposed stipulated protective order to the court within 10 days. The hearing is continued for 45 days.

  • Name

    JANE PE DOE VS BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC708604

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2019

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope