L.R. v. Camden City Public School District (080333)(Camden, Morris, and Somerset Counties and Statewide)
213 A.3d 912
| N.J. | 2019Background
- Four consolidated OPRA suits: two by a parent (L.R.) and two by Innisfree Foundation seeking school student records (access logs, settlement agreements, requests for independent educational evaluations) from four New Jersey school districts.
- Districts produced some redacted materials but withheld records as “student records” under the New Jersey Pupil Records Act (NJPRA) regulations (N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1; 7.5).
- Trial courts reached mixed results: some ordered redacted disclosure under FERPA standards; others denied disclosure treating redacted documents as still protected under NJPRA.
- The Appellate Division consolidated and held that documents remain "student records" under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1 even after FERPA-mandated redaction of personally identifiable information, but remanded to consider access via (1) court order (N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(15)) and (2) bona fide researcher status (N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(16)); it adopted Loigman balancing factors for court orders.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division (per curiam tie), agreeing that NJ regulations protect records even if anonymized under FERPA, and promulgated a non-exclusive 10-factor test (drawn from Burnett/Doe and Loigman) for courts deciding disclosure by court order; it urged DOE rulemaking for clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a document redacted to remove FERPA "personally identifiable information" remains a "student record" under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1 | Redacted records no longer identify students and thus are not protected; OPRA disclosure allowed | NJPRA/regulations protect any document containing information related to an individual student even if anonymized; redaction under FERPA does not convert status | Court held NJ regulation protects records that still "relate to an individual student" despite FERPA redaction; DOE must adopt rulemaking to change that result |
| Whether N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(g)’s reference to FERPA imports federal redaction/disclosure rule (34 C.F.R. §99.31) into state law | Plaintiffs/DOE: reference aligns NJ practice with FERPA de-identification disclosure | School districts: regulation does not explicitly incorporate federal redaction procedure; state rule controls | Court held the regulation’s reference to FERPA does not incorporate §99.31; incorporation must be precise under N.J.A.C. 1:30-2.2 and has not occurred |
| Standard for issuing a court order authorizing disclosure under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(15) | Use Burnett/Doe OPRA privacy factors (focus on public access balancing) | Use Loigman common-law access factors (focus on confidentiality, chilling effects) | Court adopted a blended, non-exclusive 10-factor test synthesizing Burnett/Doe and Loigman for court-order disclosure decisions |
| Deference to Department of Education (DOE) interpretation that de-identified records are not "student records" | DOE urged courts to defer and treat fully de-identified records as disclosable under OPRA and FERPA alignment | Concurrence: agency intent not adopted by rule; courts should apply the written regulation as drafted | Court declined to defer to DOE's brief/argument absent formal rulemaking; agency must incorporate federal rule via proper rulemaking to change result |
Key Cases Cited
- Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (New Jersey 1986) (common-law public-access balancing factors)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (New Jersey 1995) (privacy-balancing framework applied to access disputes)
- Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (New Jersey 2009) (applied Doe factors in OPRA context)
- Paff v. Galloway Township, 229 N.J. 340 (New Jersey 2017) (OPRA legislative purpose favoring disclosure)