Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Education
Defendant
Winston Krone
Special Master
Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED 

PARENTS ASSOCIATION, an 

unincorporated association, and 

CONCERNED PARENTS 

ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated 

association, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION and DOES 1 through 5, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:11-cv-3471-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

On October 16, 2015, the court held a status conference in this case to discuss the 

proposed e-discovery protocol prepared by Special Master Winston Krone. Minutes, ECF 

No. 123. Rony Sagy and Barbara Gately appeared for the plaintiff, Morgan Hill Concerned 

Parents Association. R. Matthew Wise and Ismael Castro appeared for the defendant, the 

California Department of Education (CDE). The Special Master also appeared by telephone. 

Following the hearing the Special Master submitted to the court a final form of protocol, 

substantially identical to his original proposal. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 127 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

The court has considered the proposed protocol, the parties’ letter notices 

addressing that protocol, and the parties’ arguments at hearing. The protocol is APPROVED in 

the form attached to this order. The parties are ORDERED to begin undertaking the following 

tasks immediately. 

I. FURTHER MEET-AND-CONFER WITH THE SPECIAL MASTER 

Within thirty days, the CDE and its relevant technical staff shall meet and confer 

with the Special Master to confirm whether the CDE has backups of the CASEMIS database. See

Proposed E-Disc. Protocol (Protocol) at 2, appended to this order. The Special Master shall 

report to the court on the outcome of these efforts and propose any additional orders he deems 

necessary within forty-five days. 

Within thirty days, the CDE and its relevant technical staff shall meet and confer 

with the Special Master on the production of email files, file servers, and network shares of 

custodians marked “priority” by plaintiffs on September 14, 2015. See Protocol at 8. The CDE 

and Special Master shall determine whether this priority email and data can reasonably be 

identified and searched by custodian without loading the entire collected dataset into Relativity, 

the CDE’s e-discovery review platform. See id. The CDE and Special Master shall also 

determine whether the production and loading of all email files, file servers, and network shares 

may be accelerated, including, if necessary, by a means of production other than Relativity. The 

Special Master shall report to the court on the outcome of these efforts and propose any additional 

orders he deems necessary within forty-five days. 

Within thirty days, the CDE and its relevant technical staff shall meet and confer 

with the Special Master regarding the use of deduplication procedures to avoid duplicative review 

for attorney-client privilege. See Protocol at 10. The Special Master shall report to the court on 

the outcome of these efforts and propose any additional orders he deems necessary within fortyfive days. 

II. DATA SECURITY 

The court approves of the security process outlined in pages 13 to 14 of the 

proposed e-discovery protocol. The plaintiff shall immediately begin that process. Until the 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 127 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

Special Master determines the plaintiff has established a secure hosting environment and the court 

receives and approves his certification to that effect, the CDE will not be required to produce 

student data subject to protection under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 

III. 502(d) ORDER 

Within thirty days, the parties shall meet and confer and propose an order to clarify 

the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) for review and approval by the assigned 

Magistrate Judge. 

IV. FERPA NOTIFICATION 

The parties shall meet and confer to develop and propose the details of a 

notification procedure for data subject to protection under FERPA, consistent with this court’s 

prior orders. Within forty-five days, the parties shall file a proposed order detailing the schedule, 

form of notice and objection, method(s) of publication, and allocation of associated costs. The 

assigned Magistrate Judge shall review and may approve the proposed order. 

The court notes the parties’ disagreement with respect to whether the form of 

notice should require each objection to be accompanied by a statement of reasons. The applicable 

regulation provides no guidance. See 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9). Persuasive authority from other 

federal and state courts is inconclusive. Some recent FERPA notices make a statement of reasons 

expressly optional, others require a statement of reasons, and others are ambiguous. See, e.g., 

Disability Rights N.J. v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., No. 07-2978 (D.N.J. filed June 27, 2007), ECF No. 

60 (expressly optional); Martinez v. New Mexico and Yazzie v. New Mexico, No. D-101-

201400793 (First J. Dist. Santa Fe. Cnty. filed Apr. 1, 2014) (requiring reasons);1 Doe v. Ohio, 

No. 91-464 (S.D. Ohio filed June 10, 1991), ECF Nos. 274–76 (“Write a letter to the Judge telling 

him what you object to.”). 

 1

 A notice in this case is currently available at 

http://www.aps4kids.org/news.cfm?story=106630&school=346 

 or 

http://www.aps.edu/students-parents/documents/FamilyEducationalRightsandPrivacyAct.pdf. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 127 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

The court is mindful of FERPA’s purpose: the protection of students’ and parents’ 

privacy. See, e.g., United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797, 806 (6th Cir. 2002). Moreover, 

those who seek disclosure of student records bear “a significantly heavier burden . . . to justify 

discovery than exists with respect to discovery of other kinds of information, such as business 

records.” Maxey v. Sioux City Cmty. Sch. Dist., No. 08-4007, 2009 WL 35171, at *2 (N.D. Iowa 

Jan. 6, 2009) (quoting Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free Sch. Dist., 549 F. Supp. 2d 288, 282 

(E.D.N.Y. 2008)) (alteration in original). These considerations weigh against a mandatory 

statement of reasons. 

The court therefore tentatively concludes that a statement of reasons should be 

optional. The court nevertheless grants the parties leave to file statements of authority with 

respect to whether FERPA notice should include a requirement that objections be accompanied 

by a mandatory or optional statement of reasons. These statements may be filed within seven 

days with the Magistrate Judge, who is authorized to determine the question in the first instance. 

V. CONCLUSION 

(1) The Special Master’s Proposed E-Discovery Protocol, attached hereto and 

incorporated herein, is APPROVED. 

(2) Within thirty days, the CDE shall meet and confer with the Special Master as 

specified above. The Special Master will report to the court as specified in this order within 

forty-five days. 

(3) As specified above, private student data will not be disclosed pending 

certification of plaintiff’s secure environment by the Special Master and further order of this 

court. 

(4) Within thirty days, the parties shall meet and confer and propose an order as 

provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) for review and approval by the assigned Magistrate 

Judge. 

(5) Within forty-five days, the parties shall file a proposed order detailing the 

schedule, form of notice and objection, method(s) of publication, and allocation of associated 

costs. The assigned Magistrate Judge shall review and may approve the proposed order. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 127 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

(6) Within seven days, if any party wishes to contest the court’s conclusion that a 

statement of reasons should be optional in the FERPA notice, that party may file a statement of 

authority with brief argument with the Magistrate Judge. Any opposing statement of authority 

shall be filed seven days thereafter, after which date the Magistrate Judge may resolve the 

question. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 3, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 127 Filed 11/03/15 Page 5 of 5