Appendix A: 1995 U.S. Dept. of Education Letter to Copenhaver (Page 2 of 2)
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 attorneys 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 and TCOE's motions on the same day. California DOE filed a response on September 3, 2009. Student replied on September 4, 2009. TCOE replied on September 8, 2009. Having considered the parties arguments, the administrative record, the declarations, and the judicially-noticeable facts, this Court finds these motions suitable for a decision without a hearing. Accordingly, this Court VACATES the September 24, 2009 motion hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 78-280(h) and issues the following order.
DISCUSSION
Summary Judgment Standards
On summary judgment, a court must decide whether there is a "genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also, Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue
BP 2003 – Student Records
Page 17
Desert Mountain Special Education Local Plan Area (DMSELPA) (rev. 04/14)
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator