Champa v. Weston Pub. Sch.

• Decision Date: 23 October 2015
• Docket Number: SJC–11838.
• Parties: Michael CHAMPA v. WESTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS & others.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

473 Mass. 86

39 N.E.3d 435

Michael CHAMPA

v.WESTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS & others.¹

SJC–11838.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Submitted Sept. 9, 2015.

Decided Oct. 23, 2015.

Doris R. MacKenzie Ehrens, Quincy, for the defendants.

Peter F. Carr, II, Boston, for the plaintiff.

Mary Ellen Sowyrda, Quincy, pro se, amicus curiae, was present but did not argue.

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:

Maura Healey, Attorney General, & Peter Sacks, State Solicitor, for Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Stephen J. Finnegan, Boston, for Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Inc.

Amy M. Rogers, Catherine L. Lyons, & Melissa A. Curran, Rockland, for Lyons & Rogers, LLC.

Robert E. McDonnell, Charles L. Solomont, Caitlin M. Snydacker, Boston, Peter G. Byrne, Matthew R. Segal, & Jessie J. Rossman for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

Present: GANTS, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.

Opinion

BOTSFORD, J.

In this case, the question presented is whether settlement agreements between a public school and the parents of a public school student who requires special education services are “public records” or exempt from disclosure. We conclude that the settlement agreements, regarding placement of students in out-of-district private educational institutions, are exempt from the definition of “public records” in G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth. The agreements qualify as “education records” under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (2012 & Supp. II 2014), known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and as such, fit within exemption (a ) of the definition of “public records,” G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (a ) (exemption [a ] ). The settlement agreements also contain information that relates to specifically named individuals, the disclosure of which may qualify as an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” and therefore fit within exemption (c ), G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (c ) (exemption [c ] ). We further conclude, however, that the settlement agreements may be redacted to remove personally identifiable information they contain, after which they become subject to disclosure under G.L. c. 66, § 10, the Massachusetts public records law.²

Background.³ The defendant Weston Public Schools (school district) is obligated to provide a free and appropriate public education to all students or school-age children with disabilities⁴ in accordance with G.L. c. 71B, § 1, and the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2012). From time to time, the school district enters into settlement agreements (agreements) with parents of students with disabilities to resolve disputes over entitlement to public funding for specific services or out-of-district educational placements. On January 17, 2012, the plaintiff, Michael Champa, a resident of the school district, sent a public records request for, as is relevant here, “[c]opies of all agreements entered into by the [school district] with parents and guardians, as part of the [individualized education program (IEP) ] process,^[ [^{5 ]} in which the [school district] limited its contribution to education funding or attached conditions for it for out of district placements” for school years 2007–2012. The school district's interim director of student services responded to the plaintiff's request in a letter dated January 30, 2012, stating that the information was not a matter of public

record and that “disclosure of the requested student records, in whole or in part, would constitute a violation of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Massachusetts [Student] Record Regulations.” The plaintiff sought review by the supervisor of public records, who ruled that the records sought are exempt from disclosure. The plaintiff then commenced this action in the Superior Court, seeking a declaration that the agreements were public records as well as a permanent injunction ordering their disclosure.⁶

On cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, a judge in the Superior Court (motion judge) allowed the plaintiff's motion and denied the school district's. The motion judge concluded that the agreements are “public records,” not exempt under exemption (a ), and although she recognized that certain portions of the agreements fell within the privacy exemption of exemption (c ), she concluded that, with the name of the child and any description of the child's disability redacted, the agreements were subject to disclosure. The final judgment declared that the agreements were public records, were not “student records” under the Massachusetts student record regulations or “education records” under FERPA,

and were not exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemption (a ) or exemption (c ). The school district was ordered to provide the plaintiff with a copy of all the agreements requested after the names of the students and any mention of disability were redacted, but further provided that the school district could apply to the court for clarification as to any other “unanticipated” personal information that arguably might disclose the identity of a particular student. The school district filed a notice of appeal.

Following the motion judge's decision allowing the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, the school district filed a motion to stay pending appeal, supported by affidavits of the superintendent and the director of student services, which the motion judge allowed “[d]ue to the unique nature of this case and the significance of such disclosure.” We transferred the case to this court on our own motion.

Discussion. 1. Standard of review. “We review de novo a judge's order allowing a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c), 365 Mass. 754 (1974).” Merriam v. Demoulas Super Mkts., Inc., 464 Mass. 721, 726, 985 N.E.2d 388 (2013). A motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Minaya v. Massachusetts Credit Union Share Ins. Corp., 392 Mass. 904, 905, 467 N.E.2d 874 (1984). For the purposes of a rule 12(c) motion, all of the well-pleaded factual allegations of the nonmoving party are assumed to be true. Id.

2. Public records law. General Laws c. 66, § 10, of the Massachusetts public records law (public records law) requires access to public records in the possession of public officials. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 430, 446 N.E.2d 1051 (1983). “Public records” are broadly defined, and include all “documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the [C]ommonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof.” G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth.

Due to the broad scope of the public records law, in any court proceeding challenging the withholding of a requested document, “there shall be a presumption that the record sought is public, and the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies.” G.L. c. 66, § 10 (c ). The statute's unambiguous language mandates disclosure of requested records limited only by the definition of “public records” found in G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth. See

DaRosa v. New Bedford, 471 Mass. 446, 451, 30 N.E.3d 790 (2015). There is no dispute that as a general matter, the town's records, including the records of its schools, qualify as public records. The question is whether the agreements are excepted from classification as public records because they fit within one or more of the statute's exemptions and, in particular, exemption (a ) or exemption (c ), or both.

a. Exemption (a): exemption by statute. The definition of public records exempts materials or data that are “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (a ). In Massachusetts, the disclosure of information about public school students is governed in part by FERPA, and the Massachusetts student records law, G.L. c. 71, § 34D, and its implementing regulations, 603 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 23.00 (2006). The disclosure of information regarding special education students such as the plaintiff's daughter is further governed by the IDEA, and the Massachusetts special education law, G.L. 71B. The motion judge concluded that the agreements did not qualify as “education records” under FERPA or as “student records” under 603 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 23.00, and therefore exemption (a ) did not apply.⁷ The motion judge interpreted or defined both “education records” and “student records” as including only documents directly relating to a student's academic progress, and determined that the agreements do not fit within such a definition. We conclude that the definitions of these terms adopted by the judge were too narrow.

i. FERPA. FERPA⁸ defines “education records” as materials that “(i)

contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). Neither FERPA nor its regulations limit the definition of “education records” to material relating to the student's academic progress. Under FERPA, the term “education records” has a broad scope. See

United States v. Miami Univ., 91 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1149 (S.D.Ohio 2000) (“FERPA broadly defines ‘education records' ”); Belanger v. Nashua, N.H., Sch. Dist., 856 F.Supp. 40, 48 (D.N.H.1994), aff'd, 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir.2002). See also Commonwealth v. Buccella, 434 Mass. 473, 491, 751 N.E.2d 373 (2001) (Marshall, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1079, 122 S.Ct. 810, 151 L.Ed.2d 695 (2002), quoting 5 J.A. Rapp, Education Law § 13.04 [4][a] (2000) (education records under “broad mandate” of FERPA intended to cover all aspects of student's educational...