What are the School Record Privacy Laws?

Useful Resources for Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

Recent Rulings on Privacy – School Record Privacy Laws

201-225 of 756 results

ANDRE HILL VS CITY OF RICHMOND

In that role, he was responsible for all functions related to the City of Richmond’s youth, including school resource officers, youth crimes, and various community programs related to youth engagement with the police. Id. Prior to his termination, Hill had never been disciplined for misconduct in the course of his employment with the Department nor accused of misconduct relating to off-duty behavior. [2 AR, Ex. 2, 80.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

JONATHAN CHISHAM V. NAPA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

“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

    Oct 16, 2019

LOLLICUP USA, INC. VS OBERBECK

Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 656 (recognizing this privacy right in the context of production of a peace officer’s records); Associated Chino Teachers v. Chino Valley Unified School Dist. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 530, 539 (in production of employment records of a public school teacher). See also El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345 disapproved of on a narrower point by Williams, 3 Cal.5th 531); and Board of Trustees v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

TRACY PINTO VS. MERCED UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL

In other words, defendant’s stated objection is based on a contractual provision, not an objection based on defendant’s constitutional right to right to privacy. After failing to assert a timely objection based on a constitutional right of privacy, defendant now argues its objection has merit based on privacy interests.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Merced County, CA

MERCEDES GAFFNEY VS. XXXX & XXXXXXXXXX

Clark County School Dist. V. Breeden 532 U.S. 268, 270-71 (2001). a.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

C E VS SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JENY ROSETTE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

PARTY’S REQUESTS Plaintiff asks that the Court quash Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s (“LAUSD”) deposition subpoena issued to Access Services because it is overbroad and seeks information that is irrelevant and protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Plaintiff requests $3,210 in monetary sanctions against Opposing Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2019

JAMES SUESS VS CITY OF POMONA POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

Invasion of Privacy (1st Cause of Action) To assert a cause of action for invasion of privacy, particularly that involving public disclosure of a private fact, Plaintiff needs to allege facts that show: (1) there was a public disclosure of a private fact; (2) which would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person; and (3) which is not of legitimate public concern. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 717; Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1440.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JUSTIN C JONES VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

The other claims in that case included intentional infliction of emotional distress, and two claims for invasion of privacy (false light and by intrusion in private affairs). (Ibid.) The Court found that “liability cannot be imposed on any theory for what has been determined to be a constitutionally protected publication.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

JANE DN DOE VS ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, E

Background The present case arises out of an alleged series of abusive sexual acts committed against Plaintiff Jane Dn Doe (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by Defendant Marcus Williams (“Williams”) employee and agent of Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District (“AVUHSD”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GREEN VS CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendants Cajon Valley Union School District and David Miyashiro brings this motion for summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication, of the causes of action alleged in Plaintiff Jonathan Green's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff objects on the ground that the motion was not timely because it was served on Monday morning, July 8th.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GREEN VS CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendants Cajon Valley Union School District and David Miyashiro brings this motion for summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication, of the causes of action alleged in Plaintiff Jonathan Green's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff objects on the ground that the motion was not timely because it was served on Monday morning, July 8th.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GREEN VS CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendants Cajon Valley Union School District and David Miyashiro brings this motion for summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication, of the causes of action alleged in Plaintiff Jonathan Green's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff objects on the ground that the motion was not timely because it was served on Monday morning, July 8th.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SINGH V. GURDWARA GURU KALGIDHAR SAHIB, INC.

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. (2012) 565 U.S. 171, the United States Supreme Court adopted the holdings of lower federal courts that found that there is a ministerial exception that prevents the courts from interfering in the employment relationship between churches and their ministers.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TERNESHA PEOPLES VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CORP

“Plaintiff's present mental and emotional condition is directly relevant to her claim and essential to a fair resolution of her suit; she has waived her right to privacy in this respect by alleging continuing mental ailments.” (Id. at 842.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

TERNESHA PEOPLES VS TESSIE CLEVELAND COMMUNITY SERVICES CORP

“Plaintiff's present mental and emotional condition is directly relevant to her claim and essential to a fair resolution of her suit; she has waived her right to privacy in this respect by alleging continuing mental ailments.” (Id. at 842.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MCBRIDE V. SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

ANTHONY A PATEL VS PATRICK DECAROLIS ET AL

In the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) violation of civil rights against all Defendants; (2) assault and battery against Bhatia; (3) infliction of emotional distress against all Defendants; (4) privacy violations against all Defendants; (5) custody & parent interference against all Defendants and (6) defamation against all Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

GREG BISEL VS EFD USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Medical Lab court rejected the third expectation of privacy based on an evaluation of Arizona law. That is, the Ninth Circuit recognized that this third expectation of privacy “implicate[d] the privacy interest that the California Supreme Court has termed the ‘expectation of limited privacy,’ which is an expectation of privacy against the electronic recording of a communication even though the speaker lacks an expectation of complete privacy in the communication.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

POLAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION V. HICKS

(San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. W.R. Grace & Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1326.) Cross-Complainants had three opportunities to sufficiently allege an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action and failed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

XXXXXXXXXXXXX VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

Defendants also argue that “Plaintiff waived her right to privacy concerning her employment records and does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as her Complaint seeks damages for wage loss and loss of earning capacity.” (Id. at p. 7:18-19.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE 2 VS BARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPIITAL, ET AL.

“In determining whether disclosure is required [against a privacy objection], the court must indulge in a ‘careful balancing’ of the right of a civil litigant to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, and the right of the third parties to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their sensitive personal affairs, on the other.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON VS PHELPS DUNBAR LLP

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. His civil claim against the school district was settled without litigation, but the settlement came before the superior court on a petition to approve compromise, pursuant to section 3500 of the Probate Code. The court approved the settlement and approved a stipulation to seal the file, including the data as to the amount of the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON VS PHELPS DUNBAR LLP

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. His civil claim against the school district was settled without litigation, but the settlement came before the superior court on a petition to approve compromise, pursuant to section 3500 of the Probate Code. The court approved the settlement and approved a stipulation to seal the file, including the data as to the amount of the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GREEN VS CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

'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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « 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.