Arroyo v. The Department of Education of The City of New York

S.D. New York

Arroyo v. The Department of Education of The City of New York

DecidedFebruary 12, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-07416

StatusUnknown

This text of Arroyo v. The Department of Education of The City of New York (Arroyo v. The Department of Education of The City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arroyo v. The Department of Education of The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

sDNY¥ GPP ey DOCUMENT JDGES ELECTRONICALLY FILED Ey DATE FILED. 2/12/2020 Rote sy JAMES E. JOHNSON THE CITY OF NEW YORK Assistant Corporation Counsel LAW DEPARTMENT amildner@lawaye gov 100 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10007-2601

February 11, 2020 By ECF Honorable Edgardo Ramos United States District Court Southern District of New York M E M O E N DO RS E D 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Arroyo v. Dept. of Educ. of the City of N.Y. Civil Action No. 19-cv-7416 (ER) Dear Judge Ramos: I am the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to represent Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, operating as the New York City Department of Education (DOE), in the above-referenced matter. I write to respectfully request that ECF Document Number 17-3 be sealed from public view. On December 30, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint in this matter. Plaintiff then filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion. Annexed to Plaintiff's Opposition as Exhibit I is a purported letter from Plaintiff to the Special Commissioner of Investigation, which contains student information, including the names of minor children, student identification numbers, and academic records. See Opposition at Exhibit I, ECF No. 17-3 at pp. 33 — 43. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232 et seq., school districts are deterred from adopting policies that would lead to the disclosure of student records. See Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free Sch. Dist., 549 F. Supp. 2d 288, 292 (2008). Here, Plaintiff was in possession of student records as they pertained to her job duties as a high school chemistry teacher. Plaintiff is not permitted, however, to disclose personally-identifiable student information to the public. Although student records may be disclosed to comply with a judicial order, Courts often require that such records are redacted and subject to other protection. See, e.g., id. at 294 — 95 (limiting disclosure of student records to plaintiff and counsel and requiring that they be redacted and returned at the conclusion of litigation); Jacques v. Adelphi Univ., CV 10-3076 (LDW)\(AKT), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78077 at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 19, 2011) (compelling defendants to produce redacted transcript). Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests the

seal of ECF Doc. No. 17-3 and respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff to re-file a redacted version of this document. I thank the Court for its consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alana R. Mildner Assistant Corporation Counsel cc: BY FIRST CLASS MAIL Reyna Arroyo Plaintiff Pro Se 651 Tilden Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to permanently seal the exhibit, doc. 17-3. Plaintiff is directed to file a redacted version of the document. SO ORDERED. ZA 0 ke _ /, NAcc Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J Dated: 2/12/2020 Copies Mailed4‘axed— New York, New York Chambers of Edgardo Ramos

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

sDNY¥ GPP ey DOCUMENT JDGES ELECTRONICALLY FILED Ey DATE FILED. 2/12/2020 Rote sy JAMES E. JOHNSON THE CITY OF NEW YORK Assistant Corporation Counsel LAW DEPARTMENT amildner@lawaye gov 100 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10007-2601

February 11, 2020 By ECF Honorable Edgardo Ramos United States District Court Southern District of New York M E M O E N DO RS E D 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Arroyo v. Dept. of Educ. of the City of N.Y. Civil Action No. 19-cv-7416 (ER) Dear Judge Ramos: I am the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to represent Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, operating as the New York City Department of Education (DOE), in the above-referenced matter. I write to respectfully request that ECF Document Number 17-3 be sealed from public view. On December 30, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint in this matter. Plaintiff then filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion. Annexed to Plaintiff's Opposition as Exhibit I is a purported letter from Plaintiff to the Special Commissioner of Investigation, which contains student information, including the names of minor children, student identification numbers, and academic records. See Opposition at Exhibit I, ECF No. 17-3 at pp. 33 — 43. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232 et seq., school districts are deterred from adopting policies that would lead to the disclosure of student records. See Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free Sch. Dist., 549 F. Supp. 2d 288, 292 (2008). Here, Plaintiff was in possession of student records as they pertained to her job duties as a high school chemistry teacher. Plaintiff is not permitted, however, to disclose personally-identifiable student information to the public. Although student records may be disclosed to comply with a judicial order, Courts often require that such records are redacted and subject to other protection. See, e.g., id. at 294 — 95 (limiting disclosure of student records to plaintiff and counsel and requiring that they be redacted and returned at the conclusion of litigation); Jacques v. Adelphi Univ., CV 10-3076 (LDW)\(AKT), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78077 at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 19, 2011) (compelling defendants to produce redacted transcript). Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests the

seal of ECF Doc. No. 17-3 and respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff to re-file a redacted version of this document. I thank the Court for its consideration of this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alana R. Mildner Assistant Corporation Counsel cc: BY FIRST CLASS MAIL Reyna Arroyo Plaintiff Pro Se 651 Tilden Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to permanently seal the exhibit, doc. 17-3. Plaintiff is directed to file a redacted version of the document. SO ORDERED. ZA 0 ke _ /, NAcc Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J Dated: 2/12/2020 Copies Mailed4‘axed— New York, New York Chambers of Edgardo Ramos

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Arroyo v. The Department of Education of The City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroyo-v-the-department-of-education-of-the-city-of-new-york-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack