Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/mattapoisett-public-schools-bsea-06-6153/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:50:13+00:00

Document:
On January 18, 2007, Mattapoisett Public Schools (Mattapoisett) filed a Motion for Protective Order in the above-captioned case. On January 25, 2007, Parents filed their opposition. In order to apprise the parties in a timely manner, I issued an order on January 31, 2007 denying the Motion . This Ruling sets forth the reasoning underlying that order and takes the place of the previous order.
Mattapoisett has sought protection from responding to Parents’ document request with respect to IEPs and other documents pertaining to other students with whom Student was or would be grouped when receiving educational services. Parents ask that prior to receiving the IEPs and other documents, they be redacted of any personally identifiable information.
The principal issues in dispute are (1) whether the requested documents are relevant and discoverable, and (2) whether the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Massachusetts student records regulations preclude discovery.
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . . It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Federal Rule 26(b)(1) is to the same effect.
It is not disputed that the requested documents are not privileged, have not been previously supplied, and are within the possession and control of Mattapoisett, and therefore fall within the above-quoted BSEA standards for discoverability.
However, Mattapoisett has taken the position that the documents are not discoverable because they are irrelevant, would be inadmissible at hearing, and would not likely lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In support of this position, Mattapoisett argues that any decision by the Hearing Officer regarding the appropriateness of Mattapoisett’s proposed programs would necessarily be limited to a review of Student’s “unique and individualized program and the services/placement proposed therein” by Mattapoisett.
I do not find this argument to be persuasive. The IEPs and other documents pertaining to other students provide a potentially invaluable source of information relevant to Parents’ claims that Mattapoisett’s proposed educational placements for Student are or were inadequate as a result of the inappropriate grouping of students within whom Student was or would be placed. For example, Parents take the position that in order to receive appropriate reading services, Student must be grouped with other students who have similar reading needs. I find that the requested documents are material and necessary to the prosecution of Parents’ claims. Also, it is undisputed that the documents sought by Parents are uniquely within the knowledge and possession of Mattapoisett .
Mattapoisett takes the position that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and regulations thereunder, preclude Mattapoisett from providing copies of the redacted IEPs and related documents to Parents .3 It is not disputed that Mattapoisett is an educational agency subject to FERPA. I also note that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) makes FERPA applicable to IDEA proceedings.4 I therefore consider the relevance of FERPA to the present dispute.
The Director of the United States Department of Education Family Policy Compliance Office considered the above-referenced statutory and regulatory language when faced with the question of whether a school district, under FERPA, may release information contained in education records related to one student to the parents of another student. The question arose in the context of an IDEA due process hearing in which the Hearing Officer ordered that parents be allowed access to discipline records that included written allegations made by other students charging the Student with serious or criminal behavior. The school district provided a copy of the requested records after it had redacted the names and other personally identifiable information regarding the other students. The matter was referred to the DOE Family Policy Compliance Office for clarification of whether the school district’s actions were appropriate.
Applying these principles to the present dispute, I conclude that if the IEPs and other documents sought by Parents are properly redacted of all “personally identifiable information” (as that term is defined within the FERPA regulations discussed above), FERPA does not prohibit Mattapoisett from releasing the requested documents pursuant to a discovery request.
Although the Massachusetts regulations are written using different words than found within FERPA and its regulations, the underlying scope and purposes are the same – that is, to allow parents (and eligible students) access to their son’s or daughter’s school records and to protect against unwarranted disclosure of personally identifiable information to third parties. I note that the preamble to the Massachusetts student records regulations provides that the state regulations are “to be construed harmoniously with [federal statutes regarding access to student records].” I have not found any Massachusetts case law relevant to the interpretation of these regulations.
For these reasons, I construe the Massachusetts student records regulations to provide the same protections as FERPA regarding the discovery of IEPs and other student documents. Accordingly, I do not find that the regulations provide a bar to Parents’ discovery request in the present dispute.
Mattapoisett has appropriately raised the concern that documents sought by Parents, even if properly redacted, may possibly be identifiable to a particular student. If this were to occur, it would seem most likely to happen where the person who sees the redacted record has additional knowledge about the student who is the subject of the redacted document.
· Parents’ attorneys may submit the redacted documents to the Hearing Officer and opposing party as proposed exhibits in this dispute.
· Parents’ attorneys shall take appropriate steps to ensure that there is no further disclosure of these documents, except as may be provided by further Order of the Hearing Officer.
For these reasons, the School District’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED , subject to the disclosure conditions described immediately above in part E of this Ruling.
Executive Office of Administration and Finance hearing rules, which apply to BSEA proceedings, include a similar provision. 801 CMR 1.01(8)(b).
Mattapoisett has also asserted that Parents’ document request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The document request is focused specifically on Parents’ need for additional information about other students and therefore is not overly broad. Mattapoisett has provided no factual basis from which I could find that the request is unduly burdensome.
20 USC 1232g(a)(4)(A); 34 CFR 99.3 (“Education records”).
34 CFR 99.3 (“Disclosure”) (emphasis added).
34 CFR 99.3 (“Personally identifiable information”).
20 USC 1232g(a)(1)(A). See also 34 CFR 99.12(a).
U.S. v. Miami University , 294 F.3d 797 , 824 (6 th Cir. 2002).
Osborn v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System , 254 Wis.2d 266, 290, 647 N.W.2d 158 (2002). See also Unincorporated Operating Div. of Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Trustees, 787 N.E.2d 893 ( Ind.App.,2003) (“ if these notes were properly redacted to eliminate any identifiable student information, they would not be protected by FERPA”); State ex rel. Miami Student v. Miami Univ., 79 Ohio St.3d 168, 680 N.E.2d 956 (1997) (university students’ redacted disciplinary records were not education records), cert. denied 522 U.S. 1022, 118 S.Ct. 616, 139 L.Ed.2d 502. But see Rim of the World Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court , 104 Cal.App.4th 1393, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 ( Cal.App. 2002) ( even if the student’s name and other identifying information were redacted, records are protected under FERPA).
Ellis v. Cleveland Municipal School Dist. , 309 F.Supp.2d 1019 ( N.D.Ohio 2004) ( disclosure of information protected by FERPA may occur pursuant to a court order on a case-by-case basis); Com. v. Buccella , 434 Mass. 473, 751 N.E.2d 373 (2001)( FERPA not violated unless a school has a “policy or practice of permitting the release of education records” without parental consent; single instance of releasing a record without parental consent does not violate FERPA).
603 CMR 23.02 (the student record).
This sentence of the disclosure conditions differs from the January 31, 2007 order.
I note, with appreciation, the legal research assistance provided by BSEA legal intern Joseph Presti.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.