286 F.R.D. 521
N.D. Ga.2012Background
- This action arises from a copyright infringement dispute involving a dissertaton and a later book, with alleged copying by Clark Atlanta University and a former student.
- Plaintiff Jana M. Alig-Mielcarek alleges her dissertation was plagiarized by Derrell L. Jackson, who earned an Ed.D. from Clark Atlanta.
- The Jackson Dissertation and the Jackson Book were distributed publicly, and Clark Atlanta investigated but did not revoke Jackson’s degree or remove materials as of filing.
- Plaintiff seeks discovery of documents from Clark Atlanta via Rule 45 subpoena in this district, including records beyond Jackson’s materials.
- Clark Atlanta moves to quash the subpoena or, in the alternative, seeks a protective order due to overbreadth and FERPA privacy concerns, plus additional burdens on nonparty students.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena should be quashed based on FERPA/privacy concerns | Plaintiff contends FERPA permits court-ordered disclosure | Clark Atlanta argues FERPA protects student records from broad disclosure | GRANTED in part; overbroad and privacy-protective limits upheld; nonparty records quashed |
| Whether the educational records of nonparties are overly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence | Plaintiff argues records show prior plagiarism issues and enforcement | Demands are too broad in time and scope; FERPA protection applies | GRANTED; requests for nonparty records quashed as overbroad and burdensome |
| Whether requests to develop university policies and procedures are overly broad | Plaintiff seeks broad historical policy drafts to establish standard of care | Requests are not narrowly tailored to pertinent timeframes or relevance | GRANTED; policy-related requests narrowed and largely quashed as overbroad |
| Whether the subpoena should be quashed for timeliness/oppose; whether motion is unopposed | Plaintiff opposed timely; response filed late due to procedural issues | Untimely response constitutes no opposition under Local Rule 7.1 | GRANTED in part for timeliness and merits; subpoena quashed to the extent discussed above. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rios v. Read, 73 F.R.D. 589 (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (privacy interests and need balance under FERPA; disclosure with strong showing allowed)
- Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free Sch. Dist., 549 F.Supp.2d 288 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (FERPA privacy and court-ordered discovery; heightened burden on disclosure)
- Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (broader view of discovery authority under Rule 26; limits on fishing expeditions)
- In re Equitable Plan Co., 185 F.Supp.57 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) (privilege and nondisclosure considerations in discovery assertions)