Karimi v. Golden Gate School of Law et al

Filing 89

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 77 Motion for Sanctions and vacating hearing. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MORTEZA BENJAMIN RAY KARIMI,

7

Case No. 17-cv-05702-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS

9
GOLDEN GATE SCHOOL OF LAW, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 77

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Plaintiff Morteza Karimi moves for sanctions against Defendants Golden Gate School of

12
13

Law (“Golden Gate”) and Anthony Niedwiecki for failure to comply with Rule 5.2(a) of the

14

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”).

15

The Court finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the

16

hearing set for August 31, 2018. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.1
On December 22, 2017, opposing a previous motion by Karimi for a preliminary

17
18

injunction, Defendants filed in the public record a copy of Karimi’s first-semester law school

19

transcript as an exhibit to a declaration. See dkt. 29-18 (now under seal). Karimi did not raise an

20

objection to that filing in his December 29, 2017 reply brief or at the April 20, 2018 hearing2 on

21

the preliminary injunction motion. On July 21, 2018, Karimi filed his present motion for

22

sanctions, asserting that Defendants violated FERPA by filing the transcript in the public record

23

and violated Rule 5.2(a) because the transcript included Karimi’s date of birth. See generally Mot.

24

(dkt. 77). Defendants filed a version of the transcript redacting Karimi’s birthdate three days later

25

(dkt. 79), and the Court sealed the offending document (dkt. 81).

26
27
28

1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all
purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
2
The hearing date was continued multiple times to allow the parties time to engage in mediation.

1

Karimi contends that the transcript violates the provision of FERPA prohibiting a

2

university from receiving federal grants if it “has a policy or practice of permitting the release of

3

education records” without consent, despite Golden Gate stating on its website that it complies

4

with the conditions of FERPA. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1); see Mot. at 4 & Ex. A. As Defendants

5

correctly note, however, FERPA’s implementing regulations provide an exception to that rule that

6

is applicable here:

7

If a parent or eligible student initiates legal action against an
educational agency or institution, the educational agency or
institution may disclose to the court, without a court order or
subpoena, the student’s education records that are relevant for the
educational agency or institution to defend itself.

8
9

34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9)(iii)(B).3 Karimi did not file a reply brief and thus did not respond to the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

argument that this exception applies here.
Karimi moved for a preliminary injunction in part based on harm that he asserted he would

12
13

experience from disciplinary action appearing on his academic record. See Mot. for Prelim. Inj.

14

(dkt. 18) at, e.g., 8. The lack of notation on Karimi’s then-current transcript, while not alone

15

dispositive of the question of whether Karimi might be entitled to injunctive relief against future

16

notations, was relevant to Golden Gate’s defense. Under the regulatory exception set forth above,

17

Golden Gate’s filing of Karimi’s transcript did not violate FERPA.

18

Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits filing the date of an

19

individual’s birth (except where limited to only the year of birth) in the public record of a civil

20

action, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here. Defendants violated that rule by failing

21

to redact Karimi’s date of birth from his transcript. Courts have in some circumstances exercised

22

their inherent authority to impose sanctions for egregious violations of this rule. See generally

23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Courts have not interpreted this regulation as requiring such filings to be made under seal. See
Doe #1 ex rel. Lee v. Sevier Cty., No. 3:17-CV-41, 2017 WL 1048378, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 15,
2017); Moreno v. Mcallen Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 7:15-CV-162, 2016 WL 3198159, at *3 & n.53
(S.D. Tex. June 9, 2016); Gaskins v. Baltimore City Pub. Schs., No. JKB-15-2961, 2016 WL
192535, at *8 (D. Md. Jan. 15, 2016), aff’d sub nom. Gaskins v. Abiodun, 649 F. App’x 307 (4th
Cir. 2016); Osei v. Temple Univ. of the Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ., No. CV 10-2042,
2015 WL 12914144, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2015); Jennings v. Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill,
340 F. Supp. 2d 679, 681–82 (M.D.N.C. 2004).
2

1

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Linea Latina De Accidentes, Inc., No. 09-3681 (JNE/JJK),2010 WL 5014386

2

(D. Minn. Nov. 24, 2010). Here, however, Defendants’ failure to redact the date of birth was

3

inadvertent, Vartain Decl. (dkt. 84-1) ¶ 11, there is no indication that Karimi brought the error to

4

Defendants’ attention before filing his motion for sanctions approximately seven months later,

5

Defendants promptly and effectively remedied the error by filing a redacted version of the exhibit

6

after Karimi filed his motion, and there is no evidence that Karimi suffered harm in the

7

intervening period as a result of the disclosure. Under these circumstances, the Court declines to

8

impose sanctions in this instance, but admonishes Defendants going forward to comply with Rule

9

5.2 and any other privacy rules that may be applicable.
Karimi’s motion for sanctions is therefore DENIED.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: August 24, 2018
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3