Press–Citizen Co. v. Univ. of Iowa

• Decision Date: 13 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 09–1612.,09–1612.
• Citation: 40 Media L. Rep. 2057,282 Ed. Law Rep. 640,817 N.W.2d 480
• Parties: PRESS–CITIZEN COMPANY, INC., Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

817 N.W.2d 480

282 Ed. Law Rep. 640

40 Media L. Rep. 2057

PRESS–CITIZEN COMPANY, INC., Appellee,

v.UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, Appellant.

No. 09–1612.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 13, 2012.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Diane M. Stahle and George A. Carroll, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.

Paul D. Burns and Joseph W. Younker of Bradley and Riley, PC, Iowa City, for appellee.

Michael A. Giudicessi of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Des Moines, and Mary Andreleita Walker of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae The Freedom of Information Council, Des Moines Register & Tribune Company, Iowa Newspaper Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Gazette Communications, Inc., and The Associated Press.

MANSFIELD, Justice.

This case requires us to decide where disclosure ends and where confidentiality begins under the Iowa Open Records Act and the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). See20 U.S.C. § 1232g (2006 and Supp.2010); Iowa Code §§ 22.2, .7, .9 (2007). In October 2007, two University of Iowa football players were accused of sexually assaulting another student in a campus dorm room. This incident led to a criminal investigation, criminal charges, and the conviction of one player on a charge of assault with intent to inflict serious injury and the other on a charge of simple assault. This incident also led to internal actions and responses by the University, external criticism of the University, and a special counsel investigation and report. Finally, this incident led to the present lawsuit.

The present litigation concerns Open Records Act requests that the Iowa City Press–Citizen served on the University after reports of the incident surfaced. Dissatisfied with the University's initial response to those requests, the Press–Citizen filed suit. The lawsuit resulted in more documents being produced and others being submitted for in camera review by the district court. The court then ordered additional documents produced, in some instances with redactions.

The University has appealed that order in part. It argues that FERPA prohibits the disclosure of the remaining documents, including even redacted versions of “education records” where the identity of the student is known to the recipient. The Press–Citizen counters that FERPA does not supersede any obligation to produce records under the Open Records Act, and in any event, the University has misinterpreted FERPA. For the reasons discussed herein, we ultimately agree with the University's arguments as to the meaning and force of FERPA, and therefore reverse the district court's judgment in part.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

During the early morning hours of Sunday, October 14, 2007, a female student-athlete was allegedly sexually assaulted at the Hillcrest dormitory at the University of Iowa. Two University of Iowa football players who were accused of involvement were suspended and later dismissed from the team. A criminal investigation resulted in both men being charged. One ultimately pled guilty to assault with intent to inflict serious injury, and the other was convicted of simple misdemeanor assault following a jury trial. SeeIowa Code §§ 708.1, 708.2(1), 708.2(6).

Numerous University officials were informed of the incident by Monday, October 15, 2007; however, the parents of the student-athlete believed their response was inadequate. Among other things, concerns were expressed that the University had shown a lack of understanding for the victim, had communicated poorly with her, and had allowed her to be subjected to retaliatory harassment from other students. In 2008, the University's Board of Regents engaged an outside law firm (the Stolar Partnership) to conduct a detailed investigation. Their report (the Stolar Report) criticized some aspects of the University's policies and performance.

Meanwhile, the incident received considerable publicity in the media. Articles appeared in which both football players were named. Beginning November 13, 2007, the Iowa City Press–Citizen served requests on the University under the Iowa Open Records Act. SeeIowa Code § 22.2(1) (2011) ( “Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record ...”).¹ The requests sought, among other things, reports of attempted or actual sexual assaults; correspondence to or from various University officials relating to any such incidents; and e-mail, memos, and other records relating to any such incidents from October 1, 2007 to the present.

The University initially produced only eighteen pages of documents, claiming that any other responsive documents were protected from disclosure under Iowa Code section 22.7(1). See id. § 22.7(1) (protecting from disclosure “[p]ersonal information in records regarding a student ... maintained, created, collected or assembled by or for a school corporation or educational institution maintaining such records”). On January 4, 2008, the Press–Citizen filed a petition in district court seeking judicial enforcement of the Open Records Act. See id. § 22.10 (providing for civil enforcement of the Act).

Shortly after bringing suit, the Press–Citizen filed a motion to compel. The motion asked the district court to order the University to produce a Vaughn index of the documents it was withholding.² It also urged that documents be produced in redacted form where necessary, without identifying individual students. The University resisted the motion to compel based on, among other things, FERPA. On August 7, 2008, the district court granted the Press–Citizen's motion to compel. The University thereafter released approximately 950 additional pages of documents to the Press–Citizen; prepared a Vaughn index for over 3000 pages of documents (including both the pages that had been released and over 2000 that were being withheld); and submitted those 3000 pages to the district court for in camera review.

After conducting a painstaking in camera review, the district court entered another order on August 31, 2009. The order divided the University's documents into five categories:

Category 1: documents already released by the University without redaction;

Category 2: documents already released by the University with redactions;

Category 3: documents “not protected as confidential and ... subject to disclosure ... without redaction”;

Category 4: documents “subject to disclosure ... with appropriate redactions made to remove student-identifying information including students' names, parents' names, addresses including E-mail addresses of students, dormitory and room numbers”;

Category 5: “confidential documents not subject to disclosure under FERPA, Section 22.7 [of the Open Records Act], or attorney-client privilege rules.”

The district court's August 31 order directed the University to disclose the Category 3 documents without redaction and the Category 4 documents with appropriate redactions within thirty days. On October 5, 2009, the district court entered a final judgment incorporating the provisions of its August 31 order, again directing the disclosure of the documents, and also awarding the Press–Citizen $30,500 in attorneys' fees pursuant to Iowa Code section 22.10(3)( c). The University sought and obtained a stay of the district court's order pending appeal. The University now argues to us that the district court erred in ordering the production of some of the Category 3 and all of the Category 4 documents.³

II. Standard of Review.

We review the district court's interpretations of chapter 22 and FERPA for errors at law. Rathmann v. Bd. of Dirs. of Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 580 N.W.2d 773, 776 (Iowa 1998). We review the court's application of those statutes de novo. Id.

III. Analysis.

A. The Iowa Open Records Act. Generally speaking, the Iowa Open Records Act (also known as the Examination of Public Records Act or the Iowa Freedom of Information Act) requires state and local entities to make their records available to the public. Iowa Code §§ 22.1(3), .2(1); see also City of Riverdale v. Diercks, 806 N.W.2d 643, 652 (Iowa 2011) (characterizing chapter 22 as “our state's freedom of information statute”). The Act seeks “to prevent government from secreting its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act.” Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981). We have said the Act establishes “a presumption of openness and disclosure.” Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1996). The University of Iowa, a state institution, is clearly covered by the Open Records Act; indeed, we have previously held that a private corporation commissioned by a state university to engage in fundraising for the university is covered by the Act. Gannon v. Bd. of Regents, 692 N.W.2d 31, 42–44 (Iowa 2005) (holding that the Iowa State University and its private foundation were subject to the Open Records Act).

The Open Records Act is subject to a number of listed exemptions, both large and small. SeeIowa Code § 22.7 (stating that “[t]he following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information” and listing sixty-four separate exceptions). Nonetheless, the University does not argue that any of those designated exceptions applies here. Its sole argument on appeal is that federal law, i.e., FERPA, requires the appealed Category 3 and the Category 4 documents to be kept confidential.

B. FERPA. Congress enacted the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act or FERPA in 1974 “under its spending power to condition the receipt of federal funds on certain requirements relating to the access and disclosure of student educational records.” Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 278, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 2272–73, 153 L.Ed.2d 309, 318 (2002). “The Act directs the Secretary of Education to withhold...