“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.)
“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, section 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.)
The right to privacy is expressly guaranteed by Article 1, Section 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 Sections 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.
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).)”
“(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 Section 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 Section 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.”
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 sections 49061 and 49076.” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 754-755.)
If, for some reason, a teacher or District employee was the one who brought a gun to school, any privacy right they had would be waived or greatly outweighed by Plaintiffs’ need to discovery information regarding such incidents. Defendant’s objections to the time period and relevance are OVERRULED.
Dec 11, 2019
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Quash Subpoena Defendants have subpoenaed Plaintiff’s school records. Plaintiff moves to quash on the ground that these records are subject to her right to privacy. Defendants have not opposed the motion. Any party to the action or the witness may bring a motion to quash a subpoena and may request the Court to quash it entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court shall declare including protective orders.
Dec 09, 2019
Orange County, CA
Scripps (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 103, the litigation privilege barred defamation and invasion of privacy claims arising out of communications made in the course of a court-ordered child custody and placement investigation. Specifically, a court-appointed psychiatrist told the children’s attorney and therapist an investigator’s allegations that the mother’s boyfriend had been dishonorably discharged from the military and fired from his job for dishonesty.
Dec 06, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1384.) Overbreadth and Burden By their terms, Plaintiff’s requests are very broad. The requests are often not limited by time. Communications are not limited by subject. Defendant has also provided evidence of undue burden. (Phillips Decl., ¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11.) Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $3,150.
Dec 06, 2019
Orange County, CA
In each such case, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery. The showing required to overcome the protection depends on the nature of the privacy right asserted, and whose privacy rights are being infringed (a party or a non-party). In the majority of cases, a simple balancing test is sufficient. In those rare cases where the information sought is obviously fundamental to personal autonomy, a compelling interest must be shown.
Dec 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
Discovery Motions The Tustin Unified defendants/cross-complainants Tustin Unified School District, John Tuin, Michele Boudreaux, and Tim Grave filed three discovery motions with requests for sanctions. 1. Motion to “Enforce Subpoenas” This motion is directed against the plaintiff and is DENIED without prejudice. The defendants served seven subpoenas on various medical providers.
Dec 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
Discovery Motions The Tustin Unified defendants/cross-complainants Tustin Unified School District, John Tuin, Michele Boudreaux, and Tim Grave filed three discovery motions with requests for sanctions. 1. Motion to “Enforce Subpoenas” This motion is directed against the plaintiff and is DENIED without prejudice. The defendants served seven subpoenas on various medical providers.
Dec 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff H.B. moved for an order compelling Defendant Capistrano Unified School District to serve a further response to the third set of requests for production. Defendant opposed the motion on the ground that the records implicated a non-party student who had privacy rights and may not have been fully aware of his/her ability to object.
Dec 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
Petitioner’s attempt to rely on his children’s privacy because he and they share the same last name is of no moment. His effort is analogous – although far less egregious – to the child who murders his parents and seeks the sentencing court’s mercy because he is an orphan. Petitioner simply has no legal right to raise his children’s privacy concerns in seeking to be removed from the CACI. E. Conclusion The motion is denied.
Dec 05, 2019
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
On or about January 30, 2019, Petitioner Camille Piper submitted a PRA request to the Elk Grove Unified School District seeking 17 categories of documents (all subsequent dates are in 2019). (Pet., Ex. 1.) On February 11, the District responded that some of the requested documents were available at a web address. 2 (Pet., Ex. 2.)
Nov 22, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
On or about January 30, 2019, Petitioner Camille Piper submitted a PRA request to the Elk Grove Unified School District seeking 17 categories of docimients (all subsequent dates are in 2019). (Pet., Ex. 1.) On Febmary 11, the District responded that some of the requested documents were available at a web address.^ (Pet., Ex. 2.)
Nov 22, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Given the privacy concerns of non-party third party persons in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Plaintiff and Defendant have entered into a joint stipulation re: contact information of witnesses and an order was signed regarding this joint stipulation on November 14, 2019. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory numbers 12.1, 201.5, and 201.6. 2.
Nov 22, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Grant Joint Union High School District (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378 where the Court of Appeal applied a materiality test to determine whether a plaintiff had suffered an adverse employment action. In Patten, the Court found that a lateral transfer, taken in context of the plaintiff’s entire situation, met the materiality test for purposes of finding an adverse employment action. (Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School District (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1387.)
Nov 22, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, Shapiro attests that New Community High School amended its name in 2015 to be De Toledo High School, and that all subsequent contracts sent to Plaintiff bore the new name. (Shapiro Decl, ¶¶ 3-5.) Shapiro also attests that Ellen Howard and Mark Shpall were the principal and head of school for De Toledo High School. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
Nov 14, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
“In order to state a cause of action for invasion of privacy, a party must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records, (3) a serious invasion of the privacy interest, and (4) damages caused by the invasion of the privacy interest.” (Rosales v. City of L.A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 419, 428.) Berry has not alleged he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personnel file. Nor can he.
Nov 06, 2019
Napa 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.)
Nov 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
“The United States Supreme Court has also implicitly endorsed the use of pseudonyms to protect a Plaintiff’s privacy.” (Doe v. Lincoln Unified School Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766.)
Nov 04, 2019
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
No less restrictive means exist to protect Plaintiffs’ privacy interest.
Nov 01, 2019
Orange County, CA
(Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 228 Cal.App.4''' at 238.) In performing this balancing test, the court must consider the nature, extent, gravity, and actual or potential impact of the alleged invasion of privacy. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4"' at 37.)
Oct 25, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
(Los Angeles Unified School Dist., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at 238.) In performing this balancing test, the court must consider the nature, extent, gravity, and actual or potential impact of the alleged invasion of privacy. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 37.) “[T]he court must determine whether disclosure of the information would compromise substantial privacy interests; if privacy interests in given information are de minimis disclosure would not amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]”
Oct 25, 2019
Sacramento County, CA
Union School District, et al. Currently before the Court is the motion by defendant Union School District (“District”) for protective order.
Oct 24, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Oceanside Unified School District (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 725, 727, 731 [delayed discovery rule may apply to libel claim based on contents of letter placed in a confidential file in defendant's personnel office and not discovered by plaintiff until almost 16 years later].) Defendant argues that the single publication rule prevents the application of the delayed discovery rule. The single publication rule is codified in Civ. Code section 3225.3.
Oct 24, 2019
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Overstock.com suggests that a privacy interest in confidential client financial information may take precedence, and Burkle indicates that social security numbers and bank account numbers could be redacted from family court files. These issues are addressed in Copley Press v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367. In that case, a 15-year-old boy was sexually assaulted with a broomstick by three of his teammates on the high school baseball team.
Oct 17, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Overstock.com suggests that a privacy interest in confidential client financial information may take precedence, and Burkle indicates that social security numbers and bank account numbers could be redacted from family court files. These issues are addressed in Copley Press v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367. In that case, a 15-year-old boy was sexually assaulted with a broomstick by three of his teammates on the high school baseball team.
Oct 17, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Overstock.com suggests that a privacy interest in confidential client financial information may take precedence, and Burkle indicates that social security numbers and bank account numbers could be redacted from family court files. These issues are addressed in Copley Press v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 367. In that case, a 15-year-old boy was sexually assaulted with a broomstick by three of his teammates on the high school baseball team.
Oct 17, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
