Bryner v. Canyons School District
2015 UT App 131
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Oct. 1, 2012 a Butler Middle School security camera recorded an altercation involving Roger Bryner’s child and other students (the Video). Bryner requested the Video under Utah’s GRAMA.
- The Canyons School District refused to release an unredacted copy, treating the Video as an "education record" governed by FERPA because other students were identifiable in the footage.
- Bryner sued and moved for summary judgment, arguing the Video is not an education record and therefore must be disclosed; the district defended its FERPA determination.
- The trial court reviewed the Video in camera, concluded multiple students were identifiable (face, clothing, body shape), denied Bryner’s summary judgment, and ordered the District to produce a redacted copy if Bryner paid an estimated $120 redaction fee. Bryner did not pay and the case was dismissed; he appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: the Video qualifies as an education record under FERPA, only a redacted copy may be released, and Bryner must pay the reasonable redaction cost under GRAMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school surveillance footage is an "education record" under FERPA | Bryner: Video is nonacademic and not "maintained" as an education record, so FERPA does not apply | District: Video contains information directly related to students and is maintained by the school, so FERPA governs disclosure | Held: Video is an education record — it contains information directly related to students and is maintained by/for the district (FERPA applies) |
| Whether images of other students in the Video constitute "personally identifiable information" | Bryner: No personally identifiable information exists in the Video (or it should be redacted at District expense) | District: Students are identifiable by face, clothing, body shape; images are personally identifiable | Held: Students are reasonably identifiable; images constitute personally identifiable information under FERPA |
| Whether a school surveillance recording falls outside FERPA as a law-enforcement record | Bryner/Amicus: Video is akin to law-enforcement/security footage and thus exempt from education-record treatment | District: Even if created for security, it is maintained by a non-law-enforcement component and so is not excluded | Held: No showing that the footage was both created and maintained by a law-enforcement unit; FERPA exclusion for law-enforcement records does not apply |
| Whether requester must pay redaction costs to receive a FERPA-compliant copy under GRAMA | Bryner: District should bear redaction cost or waive fee; court-imposed fee deadline improper | District: GRAMA permits charging reasonable fees for tailoring/redaction; requester may be required to pay estimated fees before processing | Held: GRAMA permits reasonable fees for tailoring/redaction; court properly ordered Bryner to pay estimated $120 redaction cost and set payment deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir.) (FERPA’s education-record definition is broad and does not depend on academic content)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S.) (discussion noting FERPA’s broad, nonspecific definition of education records)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S.) (court will not read exceptions into a statute contrary to plain language)
- Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (U.S.) (interpreting scope of “maintain” in FERPA context)
- Osborn v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 647 N.W.2d 158 (Wis.) (once personally identifiable info is deleted, a record is no longer an education record)
- State ex rel. ESPN, Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 970 N.E.2d 939 (Ohio) (FERPA’s text does not limit education records to academic materials)
- Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of Santa Fe Coll., 109 So. 3d 851 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (information is "directly related" to a student when it has a close connection to that student)