L.R. ex rel. J.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist
| Citation | 213 A.3d 912 (Mem),238 N.J. 547 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | A-61/62 September Term 2017,080333 |
| Parties | L.R., individually and on behalf of J.R., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. CAMDEN CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT and John C. Oberg in his official capacity as Interim School Business Administrator and Board Secretary, Defendants. L.R., individually and on behalf of J.R., a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Public School District and David F. Corso in his official capacity as Records Custodian of the Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Public School District, Defendants-Respondents. The Innisfree Foundation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hillsborough Township Board of Education and Aiman Mahmoud, Records Custodian, Defendants-Respondents. The Innisfree Foundation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cherry Hill Board of Education and James Devereaux, Records Custodian, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
John D. Rue argued the cause for appellant The Innisfree Foundation (John Rue & Associates, attorneys; John D. Rue, Fort Lee, and Krista L. Haley, of counsel and on the briefs).
Jamie Epstein argued the cause for appellants L.R., individually and on behalf of J.R., a minor (Jamie Epstein and Law Offices of Walter M. Luers, attorneys; Jamie Epstein, Collingswood, and Walter M. Luers, on the briefs).
Vittorio S. LaPira argued the cause for respondents Hillsborough Township Board of Education and Aiman Mahmoud (Fogarty & Hara, attorneys; Vittorio S. LaPira, Fairlawn, of counsel and on the briefs, and Robert D. Lorfink on the briefs).
Raina M. Pitts argued the cause for respondents Cherry Hill Board of Education and James Devereaux (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Raina M. Pitts and Eric L. Harrison, Edison, of counsel and on the briefs).
Eric L. Harrison argued the cause for respondents Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Public School District and David F. Corso (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Eric L. Harrison, Edison, of counsel and on the briefs, and Raina M. Pitts, on the briefs).
Donna Arons, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Department of Education (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Donna Arons, Trenton, on the brief).
Cynthia J. Jahn argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey School Boards Association (New Jersey School Boards Association, attorneys; Cynthia J. Jahn, Trenton, on the briefs).
Jeanne LoCicero argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Jeanne LoCicero, Tess Borden, Alexander Shalom, and Edward Barocas, on the briefs).
CJ Griffin submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Libertarians for Transparent Government (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys).
Catherine Merino Reisman, Princeton, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Education Law Center and Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (Reisman Carolla Gran, attorneys).
Krista L. Haley submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae New Jersey Foundation for Open Government, Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, and Student Press Law Center (John Rue & Associates, attorneys).
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
These consolidated appeals arise from two actions brought by a parent of a public school student under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and two actions brought by a nonprofit foundation under OPRA and the common law right of access to government documents. The requestors sought to compel disclosure of certain educational records maintained by the defendant public school districts. In each case, the school district declined to produce the requested records. The four trial courts that considered the issues reached inconsistent decisions, and their judgments were appealed.
The Appellate Division consolidated the cases and determined that the disputed records constituted "student records" protected from disclosure under the New Jersey Pupil Records Act (NJPRA), N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19, and its implementing regulations. L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist., 452 N.J. Super. 56, 83-87, 171 A.3d 227 (App. Div. 2017). It held that pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e), only authorized individuals and entities would be permitted access to such records. Id. at 86-87, 171 A.3d 227. The Appellate Division remanded the matters for a determination of whether the requestors could establish a right of access under two regulations that had not been considered by the trial courts, N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(15), which authorizes such access "upon the presentation of a court order," and N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(16), which grants "bona fide researchers" access to student records. Id. at 87-92, 171 A.3d 227. It also concluded that the common law right of access factors prescribed in Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 113, 505 A.2d 958 (1986), prescribed the governing standard for the issuance of a court order. Id. at 89, 171 A.3d 227.
We granted the requestors' petitions for certification, limited to two issues: the Appellate Division's construction of the term "student record" under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1, and the standard to be applied when a requestor seeks a "court order" pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(15).
We concur with the Appellate Division that a "student record" under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1 retains its protected status under New Jersey law notwithstanding the school district's redaction from that record of "personally identifiable information," as required by the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and its implementing regulations. Although New Jersey school districts are required to comply with FERPA and its regulations, no New Jersey statute or regulation authorizes the disclosure of student records after redaction of personally identifiable information or provides that school districts satisfy New Jersey's privacy mandate if they adhere to federal law. To the contrary, the text and history of New Jersey's student record privacy regulations suggest that those regulations are intended to be distinct from -- and stricter than -- those imposed by FERPA and federal regulations.
We conclude that, as currently drafted, N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1 includes in the definition of a "student record" a document containing information relating to an individual student, even if that document has been stripped of personally identifiable information that might identify the student in compliance with federal law.
Second, we identify non-exclusive factors to govern a court's determination when a requestor, not otherwise authorized by statute or regulation to have access to a given student record, seeks a court order mandating disclosure of that record pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(15). Those factors are derived from Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 427, 968 A.2d 1151 (2009), in which we applied the standard of Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995) in the OPRA setting, and from Loigman, 102 N.J. at 113, 505 A.2d 958, in which we addressed the common law right of access to government records.
The New Jersey Department of Education, which participated in these appeals as amicus curiae at our request, acknowledged the need for greater clarity in the regulations that govern access to New Jersey public school student records. We welcome the Department's commitment to provide students, parents, school districts, other educational agencies, and the public with more detailed guidance regarding the sensitive issues raised by these appeals.
We begin by reviewing each of the four underlying suits and trial court decisions. Two cases were brought by L.R. against the Camden City Public School District (Camden) and the Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Public School District (Parsippany-Troy Hills), respectively. Two other cases were brought by the Innisfree Foundation (Innisfree) against the Cherry Hill Board of Education (Cherry Hill) and the Hillsborough Township Board of Education (Hillsborough), respectively. We then turn to the single Appellate Division decision in which the four cases were consolidated.
Plaintiff L.R. is the mother of J.R. In 2014, when this litigation commenced, J.R. was a minor and attended a school operated by Camden.
L.R., acting on J.R.'s behalf, served two records requests pursuant to OPRA on Camden's records custodian. In those requests, L.R. sought an access log identifying all individuals permitted to view J.R.'s school records. She also sought records, letters, and e-mails containing J.R.'s name from sources specified in her request.
Camden produced redacted versions of the list of individuals with access and other documents but declined L.R.'s requests for several categories of student records on confidentiality grounds. It also responded that it was not in possession of certain requested categories of documents.
L.R. filed a complaint and an Order to Show Cause in the Law Division against Camden, its records custodian, and the Department of Education, seeking access to the requested documents. The trial court granted L.R.'s application with respect to the access log, but held that FERPA, not OPRA, was the source of L.R.'s right to that log. It denied L.R.'s application with respect to the other categories of records sought. L.R. appealed.
L.R. served a request for records pursuant to OPRA on Parsippany-Troy Hills to permit comparative analysis that would assist in a pending dispute between L.R. and Camden concerning J.R.'s educational needs. L.R. sought the following records:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.E. v. Elizabeth Pub. Sch. Dist.
...certification, which further stayed this case. In July 2019, an evenly divided Supreme Court decided L.R. v. Camden City Public School District (L.R. II ), 238 N.J. 547, 213 A.3d 912 (2019) and remanded the matter to the trial court.This case was consolidated with others and heard in the Ca......
-
L.R. ex rel. J.R. v. Cherry Hill Bd. of Educ.
...FERPA and the NJPRA.Plaintiff appealed. The matter was stayed pending the resolution of L.R. I and L.R. v. Camden City Public School District (L.R. II ), 238 N.J. 547, 213 A.3d 912 (2019). In L.R. I, we "attempt[ed] to construe and harmonize ... various provisions under the NJPRA, FERPA, OP......
-
D.O. v. Jackson Township Board of Education, A-3783-19
...a sua sponte global order entered a month earlier affecting numerous pending appeals with related legal issues, this court had identified the L.R. appeal one of four cases that would be heard back-to-back concerning "accessibility to school records under the Open Public Records Act ('OPRA')......
-
Doe v. Rutgers
...56, 95, 171 A.3d 227 (App. Div. 2017), affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court, L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist. (L.R. II), 238 N.J. 547, 550, 213 A.3d 912 (2019) (Patterson, J., concurring), where we ruled that a request under OPRA, the New Jersey Pupil Records Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:36......