What are the School Record Privacy Laws?

Useful Resources for Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

Recent Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

151-175 of 756 results

JANE DOE V. PETER SEARLE CLARK

On October 4, 2019, plaintiff filed her complaint against defendant for (1) unlawful recording of confidential communications, (2) violation of Civil Code Section 1708.85, (3) invasion of privacy, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) civil extortion. Defendant answered the complaint and also filed a special motion to strike plaintiff’s second and fifth causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

K. V. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Court agrees, however, that as propounded, the request for the entire files appears to invade “K.W.’s” right of privacy. Nevertheless, the Church’s response that it will “comply with this request to the extent responsive items are not protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine and/or third party privacy rights, and to the extent such responsive items are within responding party’s possession and/or control” does not comply with the Code.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

MIGUEL URRUTIA VS PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE ET AL VS MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DEBORAH JOHNSON VS BERRI'S KITCHEN HOLLYWOOD, LLC

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.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

SHERRY FENN VS LEANDRA SPENCE ET AL.

By bringing this instant lawsuit and alleging mental health injuries, Plaintiff has waived his constitutional right of privacy to the discovery of his relevant mental health records. Barbara A. Kronlund

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

ALEXANDRA A. HIGGINS VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

Defendant’s reliance on Rim of the World Unified School District v. Superior Court is misplaced. There the Court denied a request under the California Public Records Act to see an expulsion record of a student. (Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1393, as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 30, 2003).

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CLARK VS OASIS SURGERY CENTER LLC

Morongo Unified School District (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 966, italics in original.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLARK VS OASIS SURGERY CENTER LLC

Morongo Unified School District (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 966, italics in original.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHRISTINA CLAAS VS THE WINE GROUP, INC.

“[A] plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy … must establish each of the following: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39–40, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 859.) Here, Plaintiff is claiming that she had a legally protected privacy interest in her medical records. (Plf. Opp., 15:20.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

KATHY LITTLE VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

[HH] (4) A notice from an employer that a complaint was filed with the school district alleging sexual misconduct by a credentialholder.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

LAURA DELGADO VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

In 2012, Delgado was working on her sociology degree and would commonly send school-related documents from her personal email to her work email. AR 2680. She reviewed her emails, and there were more school-related emails that she sent to her work email. AR 2744. Delgado included “13” in her email address because the “3” represents her birth month and she thought to put the “1” before it without any significant meaning. AR 2745.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

XXXXXXXXXX VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ET AL

Second, there was no civil extortion claim asserted in Nguyen; the claims asserted were libel, slander, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with economic relationship. (Id. at p. 145.) Third, the facts in Nguyen are far afield from the facts in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAO BOPPANA ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Petitioners’ cross-complaint alleged claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and invasion of privacy against Nolan, stating that their claims arose out of the same front yard area improvements that are the subject of the instant mandamus action, as well as other improvements constructed in the rear of Nolan’s property. Lewis Decl. Ex. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DOE VS POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Under Government Code section 6254(c), "[p]ersonnel, medical, or similar files" may not be disclosed if such disclosure "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." [W]here complaints of a public employee's wrongdoing and resulting disciplinary investigation reveal allegations of a substantial nature, as distinct from baseless or trivial, and there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint is well founded, public employee privacy must give way to the public's right to know.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BEST VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE

Indeed, secrecy is "antithetical to a democratic system of 'government of the people, by the people [and] for the people.' " Poway Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (Copley Press) (4th DCA, Div. 1 1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1501, citing The California Public Records Act: The Public's Right of Access to Governmental Information, 7 Pacific L.J. 105, 110-111 (1976), and San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 771-772.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KARLA DE LA TORRE VS STEPHEN LENNON ET AL

Plaintiff has, of course, waived her right of privacy concerning her employment records by filing this lawsuit. Apro argues its own right to privacy and/or the right to privacy of other employees is implicated by way of the subpoena. The Court has reviewed the subpoena and does not see how the subpoena implicates the right to privacy of any person other than Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS LEAK CASES

HIPAA does not govern the standards for the court’s determination as to whether relevant information should be withheld on privacy grounds. The California Constitution provides that individuals have a privacy interest in personal health information. Relevant case law holds that a court is required to balance the strength of the privacy interest against the centrality of the information sought to the particular litigation.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION V. MIJARES

or districts in the preparation and conduct of school district litigation and administrative proceedings, and rendering advice in relation to school bond and tax increase measures and prepare all legal papers and forms necessary for the voting of school bonds and tax increase measures in the district or districts….

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2019

DOMINGUEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Specifically, Defendant Rowe previously testified that he did not see the vehicle that he hit because he was conducting "counter-surveillance" by looking into his rearview mirror as he was taught in "narcotics school." The court finds Plaintiffs establish good cause for the disclosure sought in these document requests. The court is not persuaded by the arguments Defendants raise in opposition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DOMINGUEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Specifically, Defendant Rowe previously testified that he did not see the vehicle that he hit because he was conducting "counter-surveillance" by looking into his rearview mirror as he was taught in "narcotics school." The court finds Plaintiffs establish good cause for the disclosure sought in these document requests. The court is not persuaded by the arguments Defendants raise in opposition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS EMPLOYERS HR, LLC, ET AL.

To the extent that Defendants appear to argue that Plaintiffs have waived all rights of privacy in their identifying information by filing a workers’ compensation claim in their legal names, the court finds Defendants’ argument unpersuasive. Courts have emphasized that while filing a lawsuit may be deemed a waiver of privacy as to matters embraced by the action, the scope of the waiver must be narrowly rather than expansively construed. (See Britt v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DOE V. ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Plaintiff is informed and believes that various parents and students complained to the Anaheim School District regarding Loara Elementary School employees negligently carrying out their duties and/or failing to adequately supervise the students. The names and contact information of those individuals are currently unknown to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

ALANAH STONE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff Alanah Stone (“Plaintiff”) allegedly was injured during a game of touch football at school and filed this action for negligence against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”). Defendant provided a roster with the names of the other students who were present at the time of Plaintiff’s accident. However, Defendant has refused to provide contact information for the students.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

SANDRA BUTCHER VS THE CROSSROADS SCHOOL FOR ARTS AND SCIENCE

Defendant The Crossroads School for Arts and Sciences’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas is GRANTED in part, and the subpoenaed parties are not to produce tax returns. The motion is otherwise DENIED. No sanctions are awarded. I.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « 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.