Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education

Filing 157

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 02/21/16 ORDERING that a Status Conference is SET for 2/26/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Parties shall file separate statements which may be in the form of sworn declarations with attachments by 02/24/16. (Benson, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 MORGAN HILL CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, and CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, 17 18 ORDER Plaintiffs, 15 16 No. 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and DOES 1 through 5, Defendants. 19 20 21 On its own motion, the court sets a special status to discuss the public posting of 22 the FERPA notice and information on the public’s response to that posting that has come to the 23 court’s attention. The special status is set for Friday, February 26, 2016, at 11 a.m. in 24 Courtroom 3 on 15th Floor of the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse. 25 By the close of business on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, the parties shall file 26 separate statements, which may be in the form of sworn declarations with attachments, 27 responding to the following statements: 28 1 1 1. What information with respect to the required FERPA notice was available on 2 the CDE website prior to February 17, 2016? If the information appeared in 3 different forms between February 1 and 17, 2016, what were those different 4 forms? What do screenshots of the website(s) containing the notice for this 5 time period show for each different iteration of the website? 6 2. Was the Spanish translation of the notice prepared by a certified interpreter, 7 and if so, what certification standards did that interpreter possess? 8 3. What information do the parties possess to explain why a member of the public 9 received a notice alerting that person of Identity Theft Risk, apparently 10 generated based on the notice? See ECF No. 154 (e-mail received at judge’s 11 private e-mail address to which judge has not responded, with sender and 12 receiver e-mail addresses redacted). 13 4. What information has the CDE provided to persons calling the phone number 14 appended to the notice? If a script has been provided to CDE employees or 15 representatives for use in answering questions from callers, what is the content 16 of that script? 17 5. In addition to posting the notice on the CDE webpage, what other efforts has 18 CDE, or any of its employees or agents, undertaken to distribute the notice or 19 the Secretary of Education’s Feburary 17, 2016 press release to the public? 20 6. What messages have plaintiffs distributed to members of the public regarding 21 the notice? What do copies or screenshots of those messages look like, with 22 dates and methods of distribution? 23 7. What information have plaintiffs provided to persons contacting them about 24 the notice? If a script has been provided to plaintiffs’ employees or 25 representatives for use in answering questions, what is the content of that 26 script? 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 In addition to providing written information to the questions posed above, the 2 parties shall come to the special status prepared to address: (1) whether the notice has been 3 rendered ineffective by virtue of incomplete or misleading messages that have been and are being 4 conveyed about the notice, its purpose, and its context within this litigation; (2) what weight if 5 any the court can give to objections being filed based on incomplete or misleading messages; and 6 (3) whether the events triggered by the notice require reconsideration of the methods required to 7 allow discovery to proceed so as to allow fair and just litigation of this case. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 21, 2016. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?