Jane Doe v. Unnamed School District
340234
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2019Background
- Nonparty submitted a FOIA request to a school district for records concerning two plaintiffs’ access to an elementary school; the district identified two responsive letters and initially denied disclosure citing FERPA (MCL 15.243(2)).
- The district board later ordered release of redacted versions that removed the student’s name; plaintiffs (advocates for the minor student) sought a TRO and permanent injunction to block release, alleging FERPA and privacy and disability-law violations.
- Trial court issued a TRO, reviewed the documents in camera, then dissolved the TRO and ordered disclosure with redactions of plaintiffs’ names/addresses and the student’s name; the court stayed its order briefly to allow appellate review.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dissolution of the TRO, challenging the applicability of FOIA exemptions: the FERPA-based exemption and FOIA’s privacy exemption (MCL 15.243(1)(a)).
- On appeal the Court of Appeals treated the trial court’s order as final for jurisdictional purposes and reviewed statutory and injunctive questions de novo and for abuse of discretion, respectively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether responsive letters are exempt from FOIA under FERPA (MCL 15.243(2)) | Letters contain personally identifiable information about the student and so are protected by FERPA | Letters are not "education records" because they concern plaintiffs and only refer to the student incidentally; redaction suffices | Held: Not FERPA-protected; FERPA applies only to "education records" that contain information directly related to a student, which these letters are not |
| Whether records are exempt under FOIA privacy exemption (MCL 15.243(1)(a)) | Disclosure would reveal embarrassing or private allegations about plaintiffs and the student, constituting an unwarranted invasion of privacy | Public interest in government accountability (school security/access policies) outweighs privacy interests under the core-purpose balancing test | Held: Privacy exemption inapplicable; disclosure serves FOIA’s core purpose and is not a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy |
| Whether redaction of names/addresses was appropriate | Plaintiffs implicitly argue full non-disclosure preferred to protect privacy | District contends redactions are appropriate to permit disclosure while protecting personal identities | Held: Redaction proper; names/addresses and student name should be redacted because identities do not further public understanding of school operations |
| Standing to assert FERPA rights | Plaintiffs claimed they act as legal decisionmakers/advocates and invoked student privacy | Defendant questioned whether plaintiffs may assert third-party FERPA rights absent guardianship or proper authority | Held: Court expressed skepticism about plaintiffs’ standing to assert the student’s FERPA rights but did not resolve the issue because it was unnecessary to the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Chen v. Wayne State Univ., 284 Mich. App. 172 (procedural/jurisdictional rule on appeals)
- Bradley v. Saranac Community School Bd. of Ed., 455 Mich. 285 (reverse FOIA; redaction of third-party names)
- Mich. Fedn. of Teachers & Sch. Related Personnel v. Univ. of Mich., 481 Mich. 657 (privacy exemption core-purpose balancing test)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (purpose and scope of FERPA)
- King v. Mich. State Police Dept., 303 Mich. App. 162 (public body must disclose nonexempt records under FOIA)
- ESPN, Inc. v. Mich. State Univ., 311 Mich. App. 662 (privacy balancing where records illuminate government operations)
- Mager v. Dep’t of State Police, 460 Mich. 134 (privacy exemption applied where disclosure unrelated to government operations)
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich. 230 (statutory construction principles)