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)
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?