L.R., ETC. VS. CAMDEN CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTÂ L.R., ETC. VS. PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS TOWNSHIP PUBLIC Â SCHOOL DISTRICTÂ THE INNISFREE FOUNDATION VS. HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP Â BOARD OF EDUCATIONTHE INNISFREE FOUNDATION VS. CHERRY HILL BOARD OFEDUCATION(L-2736-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE L-3104-14,MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE L-1372-15, SOMERSET COUNTYAND STATEWIDE L-3902-15, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-3972-14T4/A-4214-14T4/A-2387-15T4/A-3066-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 16, 2017

Background

  • Four consolidated appeals from New Jersey Law Division decisions about OPRA requests for special-education settlement agreements, access logs, and staff records made by (a) The Innisfree Foundation (advocacy/research org) and (b) L.R., a parent, on behalf of her disabled child J.R.
  • School districts (Cherry Hill, Hillsborough, Parsippany‑Troy Hills, Camden City) denied or redacted records relying on NJPRA regulations (N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑7.1–7.8), FERPA, and student‑privacy concerns; results below conflicted.
  • Key regulatory question: whether records that have been redacted to remove personally identifiable information cease to be “student records” under N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑2.1, and/or may be disclosed under OPRA or FERPA.
  • Trial courts split: Hillsborough denied disclosure relying on Dept. of Education regs/GRC precedent; Cherry Hill and Parsippany ordered production of redacted records (Parsippany also imposed a large special‑service redaction charge); Camden ordered production of J.R.’s unredacted access log but denied other documents.
  • Appellate holdings remand to trial courts: plaintiffs (Innisfree/L.R.) may obtain appropriately redacted records if they (a) qualify as bona fide researchers under N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑7.5(e)(16) or (b) obtain a court order under N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑7.5(e)(15); districts must provide advance notice to affected parents and allow parental input on redactions; Camden affirmed only as to parent access to her child’s own records and access logs; other matters remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Do records that are redacted of personally identifiable information cease to be “student records” under N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑2.1? Redacted records are no longer student records and thus are subject to OPRA production. Even redacted documents still "relate to" students and remain student records protected by NJPRA regulations. Redaction does not change the character of records: documents that relate to individual students remain student records and are protected under N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑2.1.
Can a requester obtain student records as a “bona fide researcher” under N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑7.5(e)(16)? Innisfree (and similar advocacy/research orgs) qualify as bona fide researchers seeking aggregated/anonymous research data. Districts warn researcher access risks student identification; regulatory categories should be strictly applied. Possible: requester may be entitled to redacted records if it establishes bona fide researcher status and adherence to strict anonymity/confidentiality requirements; factual showing to be made on remand.
May a non‑authorized party obtain records by presenting a court order under N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑7.5(e)(15)? Courts should order production after balancing public/common‑law access against privacy interests. Judicial orders should not override regulatory protection of student privacy except in rare circumstances. Yes, but process unspecified in regs; court should apply common‑law two‑step balancing (public interest in access vs. privacy/agency interest) and Loigman factors; in‑camera review and tailored redaction are appropriate.
What procedural protections must accompany production (notice, parental input, costs)? Districts can redact and charge reasonable costs; notice not required for researcher requests. Parents should receive advance notice and an opportunity to comment; redaction must be careful; special‑service charges must be justified. Districts must provide reasonable advance notice to affected parents/guardians and allow comment prior to final redactions; parental three‑day notice rule in N.J.A.C. 6A:32‑7.6(a)(4) should be observed; claims for large special‑service charges (e.g., Parsippany) require evidentiary hearing on remand.
Parent's access to her child’s records and access log (Camden)? Parent (L.R.) and her counsel sought unredacted access log and documents mentioning child. District required its own written consent form and refused some documents to protect other students and administrative burden. Parent is entitled to unredacted copies of her own child's records and access logs (subject to child‑abuse/dependency exceptions); documents that also identify other students require remand for balancing/redaction and parental notice; district's custom release form demanding liability waiver was unreasonable.

Key Cases Cited

  • Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (federal funding can be conditioned on compliance with FERPA)
  • Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I‑011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (definition of "education records" under FERPA)
  • Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (factors for balancing public access against confidentiality)
  • Burnett v. Cty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (OPRA privacy balancing factors)
  • Educ. Law Ctr. v. State Dep't of Educ., 198 N.J. 274 (government records/common‑law access analysis)
  • Home News v. State, Dep't of Health, 144 N.J. 446 (importance of executive‑branch confidentiality determinations in common‑law balancing)
Read the full case