Preview
FebIIOS 2009 15:01 HP LHSERJET PM
i
.
xx -
u
" nae/ms ximaa 8537734
‘
<1: 7‘ ins-:1:«\.,,.‘;:..;.w.;
.
‘
‘-
rust-aways".um;
ADMINAS
.. ; ..,:,»; .
I _
page 52
,uimr-sct-xz hi: .
W
>
@-
F. ROBINSON #113197'
DAVID M. BIRNBAUM #73307
#184187
51:3 “”5339?”
VHS! 0 011138 ‘
'
supgn‘lsi
6 W (IQLR'E ‘8‘AgonnaARA
E‘fifi
Offibe 0&1:cc
U
Come! ~
' '
°~
X
.llll-brranklinSu'ectJmEIoor ,, ‘
~ ’ A
' ~
'~
FEB 091009
¥”}"“§;“ ac“ $3$°3§5723300
_ _
~ '
p
‘
P
r
m
$33k
owvo‘ma..unu.
Pmmifiz 510987-9757 83“?" :“2‘2‘ Ea
”‘2'
'Auo'meys forWiIness
J PH ARNIcA. Dapuly Cl aba9<
+1
MICHAEL YOUNG VICE CHANCELLOR OF
STUDENT AFFAIRS. UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA
I
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATT
IllfTI
,. COUNTY or such 3mm
lg‘é
'
‘
MPAPPAS, I CASENO. 1304831
. Conwmm. -'
WITNESS MICHAEL YOUNG’S RESPONSE
'
;
T0 DOREEN FARR’S MOTION TO QUASH
\
v. SUBI’OENA
| .
'
DORLEEN FARR, , . Arm:
TimE: '
':
Defendant.- Depmaut: s
_
.
Contest Filed: December 3], 2008
.
i
. Assignsd to the Hon. Willim'n Mcufleny
«gaufimfiflg;::aazus=-s
'
Mm mom ass: GOV. com: saws
NM
WITNESSYOUNG‘SRESEONSE TOHO‘HONTDOUASH SUBPOENA
” '‘‘ ~
' '
" ‘
Feb :08 2009 15:01 HP LHSERJET FHX
"
I
'
'
I ‘
«69/2389 12:43 5937734 ADMIN AS PAGE 63 ~‘
I ‘ 3 .
‘ . ,. ,,,~»...,.;:~-..
a. :2n e -.r ants-(rs
‘ .'
'
”*irtit‘i‘ll‘rF-T’C.‘ -:.=.f«nina:|.-x.:-'
'r—
r Non-party witness Michael Young, the Vice Chancellor ofstudent Affairs at the
.
r0 amenity or Califomin. Santa Barbara crucss" or the "University‘V, respectfully submits this
response to Defendant Daren Farr' s nrohon to quash the subpoena issued to hint by Contestant:
C I
maf'u
Steven Poppa. the University rs not a party to this litigation 'and takes no position on the
‘
'onitn general or this motion to particular. However,
a.
é‘thfit fiflm‘fléfilwpgtdhg the Coon’ a resolution of this mononan
Walexl
with?”
.an appropriate protective order. Thismpon‘se seeks to clarify certain issues raised'tn the motion
andto' request the Court's guidance In rsponding to the subpoena
V
EOn or about January 13, 2009. the University received the subpoena at issue in this
motion. The subpoena seeks two megories of documents from the University:
(1) Records pertaining to the voter registration drives conducted at UCSB'in 2003. and
ouburuu—o
u-n-nuy-nu-np-‘u
(2) A reportcf the names, resident addresses, dates ofbirth, and cnizenshr'p of at) students
'
.
enrolled at UCSB'm 2008.
from regard to the second category of documents requested the University determined
.5 ~
that ithad responsive data, but that the data constituted "personally identifiable informaflon"as
defined by the Fondly who! Rights the Privacy Act (FERPA). 20 U. s ..c 5 1232; Under.
.. regulator-rs promulgated pursuant to FERPA, the University may release students' personally
idauifi'able information “to comply with ajurllolal order or lawfully issuer! subpoena.” hot it must
“molten a reasomble efl‘ort to ootifythe parent or eligible student oftlre order or subpoena in
‘
advance of compliance. so that the parent 0t eligible sutderrtmay seek protective action.” 34
cut
«uvmh.9b‘msgwsg~r
S 99. none). none». on or about January 23. 2009, the University sent an email to all
' The'Univem mi? understands from Pappas’ course] that the subpoena seeks information
ntgardiqg the Fall 200
...........
voter registration drive.
Some or the information requested by the subpoena (e. g.., student names and addresses)
are considered “directory information‘ ’under FERPA and the University' 5 policies. Director-y
information may be released without the srudent' a prior consent to a third arty unless a student
hassubmineda'flotk'or Release" FonntotheUmversity. 34 C ..F R §§ 93, 99. 310 I).
Nonetheless, the University does not typically release mailing lists of'its smdems’ infomation.
and therefore has requestedthat the parties agree to, and the Court enter, an appropriate protective
order restricting the use of any information produced or response to the subpoena.
3
. _
~Vt{fl'fl5§8acumenesrousa to moms to nunsrr ausaoem
Feb .09 2008 15:0] HP LHSERJEI FFlX
's'lz'ea‘d 12:43 3931734
"
/ ADMIN AS m: on
'-'i
..".23.‘.Li‘...-. ¢;.t_. ...~*..
.“
"1rx ,
.
students who Wore registered at ucsn for me Fall 2008 semester notifying them ofthe modem
and th'eir right to take legal action to block the release of their information sought in the second
reques‘t. Where the University learned that a student’s email address was invalid, it also seuta
-
followup notice by U. 5. mail to the last available mailing address for the studedt. In addition,
trequired to, the University set up a website to provide additional infonualion
,
e su po [2students and to 335131 thosemam who wisbed to oliject‘ to
d
Wtharr filing formal motions or serving hard copy objections on the University and the .
"“Wrrgsmsmwsm ’~
”mm” ‘ennenneonarsnm stem“ amen};
objections-electronically throw a fionn on this website Counsel for subpoenaing party Pappas
consented to receiving objections in tlrls'manner. Students were explicitly informed on the
websiiie that. "(upon completion of this loan." their names and reasons for objecting would be
rmwaided to n: subpoemiug party. (Declaration orrndne'n. Woocher in Support or Defendant
Doreen Farr-’5 Motiouto Quasi: Ex. 4.) By e'rieldng n checkborr on the form. objecting students
also uhflrmed. “i also understand that my name and reason for objeption WILL be forwarded to
me nipoenarng attorney.” (Id.) As of Fehruary s, more than 2500 objections have been
receivied through the website. Counsel for the University is informed and believes that the
University has also reeeived written objections'rn hard copy from some students, and the
Unite'rsity intends to honor those objections'as we'll
The University alsolras heel: and remains willing to handle student objections through
flmdflvomms. Upon leaming of Farr s diragreernmt with the transmission of student
objections to Pappas’ counsel through the website, the University asked Pappas‘ counsel if he
meringue to allow the University to hold the students’ objections pending the Court's decision ,
on Farr’s motion to quash and agree to deem any such objections submitted by students to the
University before February 9 as timely. Despite multiple requests, however, the University
received no such assurances.
With regard to die fim category of documents requened'm the subpoma. the University
has been diligently reuniting liar and reviewing potentially responsive hard copy and electronic
dourruenrs'in its custody and 'cunu'ol. This task has been quite time-consuming beeausc, among
.7.
‘, ,V.WS‘YPWWREWEEIQMQ‘HDN'TOQUASH savanna..- .
.M”
Feb 08 2008 15:01 HF' LRSERJET FHX ,-
'19/232173 12. as 9937734
‘~
mum w * m; as
. .
gm,“ ‘...~‘11:'.,r.
oflia'lthings, 02858 documents are not centrally located but insiead are dispersed acmss difierem
N 0113e and eomputers. BaSed on its review to date, theUnivetsily basdemmined that there is
u also personally identifiable information [such as 51116311111511)“, addresses, phone numhen,
and
on;
Wilma» in some of these doeuofinls, and 11is 31121111313112 to segregafe these documents
and piovide additional notices to afi'ected students about the additional lnfonnztlon sought
01:01
1
.. 1
afthe volume of document: involved, however, he Umvm 11115 hm ya oomph};
.
Because
g flu: task. Should the Com eonelode that the sobpoem is valid; nmowin he seae ol’l'lu:l
'
,95
06‘
-
Ema;audugh agiéefiient with '11: péxties 'or 01'd 6f meow (f0? MIG; W Mandi“? '‘
o voluminous copies of 1231811311011 forms in pa'pét and electrode format) will helpthe Univetsity
)0 produce the information needed. for “is m'ul'1n a timely fiashion.’
ll Dated: February 9, 2009
12 .'
CHARLES E. ROBINSON
'
i
DAVID M. EIRNB‘AUM
13 :
MARGARET L. WU '
14
15
16
By:
%%i
MG L.WU
It- fl”:
Attomeys for W'mm
11 .
. MICHAEL YOUNG. VICE CHANCELLOR
_
' '
OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF
ll). i
1
'
. CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA '
19
20
21
22
i3
24
26
27
1
28
Counsel for Witness Young andthe University res dfil" ens the o om: my to
pmvide additional information at the hearing on this motionpzs majbfiagpropxintefm
.3.
”MU ’ ms TQUNG‘S RESPONSE 10 WIND?! TD QUASI
gym
Preview
FebIIOS 2009 15:01 HP LHSERJET PM i . xx - u " nae/ms ximaa 8537734 ‘ <1: 7‘ ins-:1:«\.,,.‘;:..;.w.; . ‘ ‘- rust-aways".um; ADMINAS .. ; ..,:,»; . I _ page 52 ,uimr-sct-xz hi: . W > @- F. ROBINSON #113197' DAVID M. BIRNBAUM #73307 #184187 51:3 “”5339?” VHS! 0 011138 ‘ ' supgn‘lsi 6 W (IQLR'E ‘8‘AgonnaARA E‘fifi Offibe 0&1:cc U Come! ~ ' ' °~ X .llll-brranklinSu'ectJmEIoor ,, ‘ ~ ’ A ' ~ '~ FEB 091009 ¥”}"“§;“ ac“ $3$°3§5723300 _ _ ~ ' p ‘ P r m $33k owvo‘ma..unu. Pmmifiz 510987-9757 83“?" :“2‘2‘ Ea ”‘2' 'Auo'meys forWiIness J PH ARNIcA. Dapuly Cl aba9< +1 MICHAEL YOUNG VICE CHANCELLOR OF STUDENT AFFAIRS. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATT IllfTI ,. COUNTY or such 3mm lg‘é ' ‘ MPAPPAS, I CASENO. 1304831 . Conwmm. -' WITNESS MICHAEL YOUNG’S RESPONSE ' ; T0 DOREEN FARR’S MOTION TO QUASH \ v. SUBI’OENA | . ' DORLEEN FARR, , . Arm: TimE: ' ': Defendant.- Depmaut: s _ . Contest Filed: December 3], 2008 . i . Assignsd to the Hon. Willim'n Mcufleny «gaufimfiflg;::aazus=-s ' Mm mom ass: GOV. com: saws NM WITNESSYOUNG‘SRESEONSE TOHO‘HONTDOUASH SUBPOENA ” '‘‘ ~ ' ' " ‘ Feb :08 2009 15:01 HP LHSERJET FHX " I ' ' I ‘ «69/2389 12:43 5937734 ADMIN AS PAGE 63 ~‘ I ‘ 3 . ‘ . ,. ,,,~»...,.;:~-.. a. :2n e -.r ants-(rs ‘ .' ' ”*irtit‘i‘ll‘rF-T’C.‘ -:.=.f«nina:|.-x.:-' 'r— r Non-party witness Michael Young, the Vice Chancellor ofstudent Affairs at the . r0 amenity or Califomin. Santa Barbara crucss" or the "University‘V, respectfully submits this response to Defendant Daren Farr' s nrohon to quash the subpoena issued to hint by Contestant: C I maf'u Steven Poppa. the University rs not a party to this litigation 'and takes no position on the ‘ 'onitn general or this motion to particular. However, a. é‘thfit fiflm‘fléfilwpgtdhg the Coon’ a resolution of this mononan Walexl with?” .an appropriate protective order. Thismpon‘se seeks to clarify certain issues raised'tn the motion andto' request the Court's guidance In rsponding to the subpoena V EOn or about January 13, 2009. the University received the subpoena at issue in this motion. The subpoena seeks two megories of documents from the University: (1) Records pertaining to the voter registration drives conducted at UCSB'in 2003. and ouburuu—o u-n-nuy-nu-np-‘u (2) A reportcf the names, resident addresses, dates ofbirth, and cnizenshr'p of at) students ' . enrolled at UCSB'm 2008. from regard to the second category of documents requested the University determined .5 ~ that ithad responsive data, but that the data constituted "personally identifiable informaflon"as defined by the Fondly who! Rights the Privacy Act (FERPA). 20 U. s ..c 5 1232; Under. .. regulator-rs promulgated pursuant to FERPA, the University may release students' personally idauifi'able information “to comply with ajurllolal order or lawfully issuer! subpoena.” hot it must “molten a reasomble efl‘ort to ootifythe parent or eligible student oftlre order or subpoena in ‘ advance of compliance. so that the parent 0t eligible sutderrtmay seek protective action.” 34 cut «uvmh.9b‘msgwsg~r S 99. none). none». on or about January 23. 2009, the University sent an email to all ' The'Univem mi? understands from Pappas’ course] that the subpoena seeks information ntgardiqg the Fall 200 ........... voter registration drive. Some or the information requested by the subpoena (e. g.., student names and addresses) are considered “directory information‘ ’under FERPA and the University' 5 policies. Director-y information may be released without the srudent' a prior consent to a third arty unless a student hassubmineda'flotk'or Release" FonntotheUmversity. 34 C ..F R §§ 93, 99. 310 I). Nonetheless, the University does not typically release mailing lists of'its smdems’ infomation. and therefore has requestedthat the parties agree to, and the Court enter, an appropriate protective order restricting the use of any information produced or response to the subpoena. 3 . _ ~Vt{fl'fl5§8acumenesrousa to moms to nunsrr ausaoem Feb .09 2008 15:0] HP LHSERJEI FFlX 's'lz'ea‘d 12:43 3931734 " / ADMIN AS m: on '-'i ..".23.‘.Li‘...-. ¢;.t_. ...~*.. .“ "1rx , . students who Wore registered at ucsn for me Fall 2008 semester notifying them ofthe modem and th'eir right to take legal action to block the release of their information sought in the second reques‘t. Where the University learned that a student’s email address was invalid, it also seuta - followup notice by U. 5. mail to the last available mailing address for the studedt. In addition, trequired to, the University set up a website to provide additional infonualion , e su po [2students and to 335131 thosemam who wisbed to oliject‘ to d Wtharr filing formal motions or serving hard copy objections on the University and the . "“Wrrgsmsmwsm ’~ ”mm” ‘ennenneonarsnm stem“ amen}; objections-electronically throw a fionn on this website Counsel for subpoenaing party Pappas consented to receiving objections in tlrls'manner. Students were explicitly informed on the websiiie that. "(upon completion of this loan." their names and reasons for objecting would be rmwaided to n: subpoemiug party. (Declaration orrndne'n. Woocher in Support or Defendant Doreen Farr-’5 Motiouto Quasi: Ex. 4.) By e'rieldng n checkborr on the form. objecting students also uhflrmed. “i also understand that my name and reason for objeption WILL be forwarded to me nipoenarng attorney.” (Id.) As of Fehruary s, more than 2500 objections have been receivied through the website. Counsel for the University is informed and believes that the University has also reeeived written objections'rn hard copy from some students, and the Unite'rsity intends to honor those objections'as we'll The University alsolras heel: and remains willing to handle student objections through flmdflvomms. Upon leaming of Farr s diragreernmt with the transmission of student objections to Pappas’ counsel through the website, the University asked Pappas‘ counsel if he meringue to allow the University to hold the students’ objections pending the Court's decision , on Farr’s motion to quash and agree to deem any such objections submitted by students to the University before February 9 as timely. Despite multiple requests, however, the University received no such assurances. With regard to die fim category of documents requened'm the subpoma. the University has been diligently reuniting liar and reviewing potentially responsive hard copy and electronic dourruenrs'in its custody and 'cunu'ol. This task has been quite time-consuming beeausc, among .7. ‘, ,V.WS‘YPWWREWEEIQMQ‘HDN'TOQUASH savanna..- . .M” Feb 08 2008 15:01 HF' LRSERJET FHX ,- '19/232173 12. as 9937734 ‘~ mum w * m; as . . gm,“ ‘...~‘11:'.,r. oflia'lthings, 02858 documents are not centrally located but insiead are dispersed acmss difierem N 0113e and eomputers. BaSed on its review to date, theUnivetsily basdemmined that there is u also personally identifiable information [such as 51116311111511)“, addresses, phone numhen, and on; Wilma» in some of these doeuofinls, and 11is 31121111313112 to segregafe these documents and piovide additional notices to afi'ected students about the additional lnfonnztlon sought 01:01 1 .. 1 afthe volume of document: involved, however, he Umvm 11115 hm ya oomph}; . Because g flu: task. Should the Com eonelode that the sobpoem is valid; nmowin he seae ol’l'lu:l ' ,95 06‘ - Ema;audugh agiéefiient with '11: péxties 'or 01'd 6f meow (f0? MIG; W Mandi“? '‘ o voluminous copies of 1231811311011 forms in pa'pét and electrode format) will helpthe Univetsity )0 produce the information needed. for “is m'ul'1n a timely fiashion.’ ll Dated: February 9, 2009 12 .' CHARLES E. ROBINSON ' i DAVID M. EIRNB‘AUM 13 : MARGARET L. WU ' 14 15 16 By: %%i MG L.WU It- fl”: Attomeys for W'mm 11 . . MICHAEL YOUNG. VICE CHANCELLOR _ ' ' OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF ll). i 1 ' . CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA ' 19 20 21 22 i3 24 26 27 1 28 Counsel for Witness Young andthe University res dfil" ens the o om: my to pmvide additional information at the hearing on this motionpzs majbfiagpropxintefm .3. ”MU ’ ms TQUNG‘S RESPONSE 10 WIND?! TD QUASI gym