Appendix B: S.A. v. Tulare County Office of Education Emails are Not Educational Records if they are “Not Printed and Placed” in a Student’s File AR at 31, 39 (emphasis in original). As to count two, California DOE concluded: The COE provided hard copies of the student's records. The Complainant acknowledged receiving a "stack of documents containing e-mails with dates ranging from 2006 through 2007." The COE is not required to notify the Complainant before purging e-mails related to the student as the e-mails are not considered "educational" records" that are "maintained" by the educational agency under 34 CFR Section 99.6. The COE is in compliance. AR at 32, 40 (emphasis in original). Student filed a request for clarification and reconsideration of California DOE's Compliance Complaint Report. AR at 4-7. In the request for clarification and reconsideration, Student asked whether California DOE determined all records requested by Student were produced. In addition, Student sought reconsideration to determine whether TCOE had destroyed requested records and to declare that TCOE was out of compliance for failing to inform Student's parents that Student's records were to be purged. In response to Student's request for clarification and reconsideration, California DOE issued a report that found no inconsistencies with its prior findings. AR at 1. On August 22, 2008, Student sent a letter to TCOE demanding attorney’s fees for the successful claims in the Compliance Complaint. Declaration of Drew Massey ("Massey Decl."), Exhibit I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Student initiated this action on August 15, 2008, and proceeds on his first amended complaint ("FAC") to allege: (1) A first cause of action against TCOE, claiming that TCOE failed to provide Student's complete "education record" in violation of federal and state law by failing to provide all emails regarding Student and destroying them without parental notification or consent in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.624; (2) A second cause of action against California DOE to: (a) reverse California DOE's findings that emails are not "education records" to be maintained by the educational agency and that TCOE was in compliance; and (b) require California DOE to take "appropriate corrective actions"; and (3) A third cause of action against TCOE to reimburse attorney fees not less than $5,462.64 for "successful prosecution of the compliance complaint." The FAC seeks: (1) Reversal of California DOE's decision; (2) Findings that TCOE violated federal and state laws by failing to produce emails that were Student's "education records" to be "maintained" under 34 C.F.R. § 99.3; (3) An order that TCOE provide Student's existing records which should have been produced pursuant to Student's initial July 10, 2007 request; (4) An order that TCOE notify parents when it intends to destroy Student's "education records"; and (5) An award of $5,462.64 attorney fees for "successful prosecution of the compliance complaint." *3 On August 19, 2009, Student and California DOE filed cross-motions for summary judgment of Student's claims (Docs. 59, 60). On the same day, TCOE filed a "Motion to Object to Plaintiff's Demand for Attorneys' Fees in the Amount of Not Less than $5,462.64." (Doc. 63). California DOE and TCOE opposed Student's motion on August 28, 2009. Student opposed California DOE's
BP 2001 – Confidentiality and Student Records
Page 21
Desert Mountain Charter Special Education Local Plan Area (DMCS) (rev. 11/16)
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online