What are the School Record Privacy Laws?

Useful Resources for Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

Recent Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

176-200 of 756 results

ROBERT RUIZ DOMINGUEZ ET AL VS ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SC

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

KAHMAR V. JAFFKE

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

DENISE THOMAS ET AL VS ELIZABETH CASTANEDA

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KARIMI V. CARDFLEX, INC., ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

DOE V. TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

DOE V. TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

B. VS. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

M B VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CAMILLE PIPER VS. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

CAMILLE PIPER VS. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

SHAHROOZ SHAHRAM VS KEDREN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PATRICIA BILGIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

SHADI GOLEH VS DE TOLEDO HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRUCE CHADBOURNE, ET AL. V. FAYE LOAN SERVICING, ET AL.

“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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

S. B. VS. OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

JANE DOE VS HONGMIN ZHAO, ET AL.

“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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RIMROCK HIGH INCOME PLUS (MASTER) FUND LTD VS. JEFFERIES LLC

No less restrictive means exist to protect Plaintiffs’ privacy interest.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

(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.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

(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[.]”

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN DOE V.

Union School District, et al. Currently before the Court is the motion by defendant Union School District (“District”) for protective order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

VIOLETA ALCARAZ VS KDW AUTOMOTIVE INC

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KABBAN VS SANTA MARTHA RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KABBAN VS SANTA MARTHA RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KABBAN VS SANTA MARTHA RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « 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.