Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471-12/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 

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, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

 On April 30, 2015, this court held a status conference, at which Rony Sagy and 

Barbara Gately appeared for plaintiffs and Brenda Ray and R. Matthew Wise appeared for 

defendants. At the status conference, the court and counsel discussed production of electronically 

stored information and limited appointment of a special discovery master, among other things. 

I. Candidates for Special Master 

 The parties agree Mr. Winston Krone of Kivu Consulting is the most qualified 

candidate to serve as a special master. The parties represent they have contacted Mr. Krone, and 

he has expressed willingness and availability to serve as a special master in this case. Since the 

status conference, plaintiffs’ counsel has reiterated the parties believe Mr. Krone “is a strong 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 103 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 4
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

candidate to undertake the responsibilities contemplated by the Court . . . .” (ECF No. 102.) The 

parties do not object to the court contacting Mr. Krone on its own to confirm as much. 

II. Special Master’s Compensation 

 The parties and the court also discussed the question of who will be responsible for 

the special master’s compensation. The court directed the parties to file simultaneous briefs on 

that question by June 5, 2015, and hereby confirms that deadline. 

III. Notice under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) 

 Defendants reaffirmed their position that personally identifiable information about 

students with special needs cannot be released without providing individual notice to those 

students and obtaining their written consent, the cost of which plaintiffs must bear. Plaintiffs 

confirmed their disagreement with that position, arguing for an exception when a court orders 

disclosure subject to conditions. The court hereby confirms that the parties may file focused 

simultaneous briefs, each no longer than ten pages, on the question of notice and consent by 

May 22, 2015. 

 To facilitate the parties’ focused briefing, the court provides its tentative reading of 

the relevant law below. 

 Congress enacted FERPA to protect the privacy of students and their parents. See 

20 U.S.C. § 1232g; United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797, 806 (6th Cir. 2002); Cherry v. 

Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 11-01783, 2012 WL 4361101, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 21, 2012); Rios v. 

Read, 73 F.R.D. 589, 597–99 (E.D.N.Y. 1977); Mattie T. v. Johnston, 74 F.R.D. 498, 501 (N.D. 

Miss. 1976). FERPA conditions the receipt of federal funding by educational institutions or 

agencies on their compliance with certain procedures concerning the keeping of educational 

records. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; Miami Univ., 294 F.3d at 806. These procedures are designed, 

among other things, to restrict access to students’ educational records by third parties without 

parents’ consent. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2). If, however, the students in question are eighteen 

years of age or older, the consent required under FERPA is required of the students, rather than 

the parents. Id. § 1232g(d). 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 103 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 4
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

 The consent requirement is subject to several exceptions. The most relevant 

exception to this action allows for disclosure without consent if disclosure is to comply with a 

judicial order or subpoena and the educational institution has made a reasonable effort at 

notification. 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9). Reasonable efforts to notify must be made in advance of 

compliance, “so that the parent or eligible student may seek protective action . . . .” Id.

§ 99.31(a)(9)(ii). Confidential information may be disclosed if the notification requirements are 

met and there is a protective order in place restricting disclosure. See, e.g., Morton v. Bossier 

Parish Sch. Bd., No. 12-1218, 2014 WL 1814213, at *4 (W.D. La. May 6, 2014); C.T. v. Liberal 

Sch. Dist, No. 06-2093, 2008 WL 394217, at *4 (D. Kan. Feb. 11, 2008); see also Rios, 73 F.R.D. 

at 602 (noting “the need for a protective procedure when disclosure to a private party is directed 

by court order, it would seem sensible to require in the disclosure order that the recipients of the 

student records avoid revealing the data to individuals unconnected with the litigation and destroy 

the data when it is no longer needed. But it is neither required nor necessary that the defendants 

redact the names of the students from the records and substitute neutral identifying information”). 

 The appropriate type of notice depends on the circumstances of each case. Rios, 

73 F.R.D. at 600. For instance, “where exceptionally large numbers of students are involved, it 

may be enough for a school or school district to publish notice in a newspaper.” Id. In Rios, 

where the case “involve[ed] several hundred students,” the court found “appropriate notice could 

be effected either by publication or by mail.” Id. Here, the court understands that a very large 

number of student records are affected by plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (See ECF No. 67.) 

Notice by publication appears to be the only practical method of complying with the statute and 

regulations, while allowing the case to move forward on a reasonable timetable. 

 The court tentatively finds that the educational records at issue here may be 

disclosed without running afoul of FERPA as long as parents or students are notified of the 

disclosure by publication and a protective order restricts the use of the information to this 

litigation only. See Liberal Sch. Dist, 2008 WL 394217, at *4; see also Moeck v. Pleasant Valley 

Sch. Dist., No. 13-1305, 2014 WL 4988274, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2014); Doe v. Ohio, No. 91-

0464, 2013 WL 2145594, at *9 (S.D. Ohio May 15, 2013); Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., No. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 103 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 4
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

07-3100, 2009 WL 1259100, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2009). Here, there is a protective order in 

place governing the disclosure of confidential information. (ECF No. 60.) That order appears 

adequate to ensure the information disclosed is not disseminated to others. (Id. at 4 (ordering 

confidential information to be used solely for the purposes of this lawsuit).). 

IV. Future Status Conference 

 The court sets a further status conference on June 25, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. At that 

time, the court will consider the role and duties of the special master, and confirm whether Mr. 

Krone will be appointed. The parties are directed to file a joint status report seven days before the 

status conference providing their joint proposal(s) defining the special master’s role. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 14, 2015. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 103 Filed 05/15/15 Page 4 of 4