Shapiro v. Roger Williams University et al

Filing 105

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 86 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court: Plaintiff's appeal is DENIED and the Magistrate Judge's order is AFFIRMED in all respects. So Ordered by Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi on 5/25/2012. (A copy of the instant Memorandum and Order was forwarded via first-class mail to Plaintiff's California address.)(Duhamel, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

JOSHUA BARRETT SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff
C.A. No. 011-140-ML

v.
ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's appeal
(Docket# 86) from the April 17, 2012 order by a Magistrate Judge
(Docket # 72)
Motion
motion,

for

denying the Defendant Roger Williams University's

Protective

filed

in

Order

response

to

(Docket
the

#

45) .

The

Plaintiff's

University's

request

for

his

educational records, sought to protect the identity of students who
had

interacted with

the

Plaintiff,

including

complained regarding his behavior towards

students

them.

who

had

The Plaintiff

filed a memorandum in opposition to that motion, and the Magistrate
Judge noted in his order that the Plaintiff's filing was not in
compliance with Local Rule Cv 7(b).
Following a hearing on April 16, 2012, in which both parties
were afforded an opportunity to present their respective arguments,
the Magistrate Judge denied the University's motion on the ground
that the "Plaintiff by his opposition to the Motion has clearly
consented to the release of his own records."

Order 2 (Docket #

72). The order required the University to (1) provide the Plaintiff
1

with copies of his educational records in redacted form within
seven days; (2) provide the Plaintiff with unredacted copies of his
educational

records

within

forty-five

days;

and

(3)

to

make

reasonable efforts to notify the students whose identities would be
disclosed to

the

Plaintiff

and inform them of

their

intervene in this action regarding such disclosure.

right

to

In addition,

the order denied the Plaintiff's request that the University be
ordered

to

pay

Plaintiff's

reasonable

costs

connection with the motion for protective order.

and

expenses

in

With respect to

that denial, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the University had
a good faith basis for filing its motion.

Order 4.

The Plaintiff now seeks an order requiring the University to
provide all the Plaintiff's student records in unredacted form and
to award the Plaintiff his cost and expenses. The University has
filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiff's appeal.
With respect to the first request, the Court notes that the
Magistrate Judge's order already provides for production of the
Plaintiff's educational records in unredacted form; consequently,
the Plaintiff's request becomes moot within a few days of this
order. With respect to the second request, the Magistrate Judge's
finding that the University had a good faith basis for filing its
motion was well supported. The Plaintiff has provided no evidence
that the Magistrate Judge's order regarding this non-dispositive
matter was "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law."

2

Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72 (a); see also 28 U.S.C.

§

636 (b) (1) (A).

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff's appeal is DENIED
and the Magistrate Judge's order is AFFIRMED in all respects.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Lisi
Mary M. Lisi
Chief United States District Judge
May 25, 2012

3