Opinion
Page 773d
105 Cal.App.4th 773d ___Cal.Rptr.2d___ RIM OF THE WORLD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; LARRY KOMAR, Real Party in Interest. E032252 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division January 30, 2003[Modification of opinion (104 Cal.App.4th 1393; 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 11) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
This modification requires editorial changes to headnote (1a-1d), page 1394. The following sentence will be added at the end of the headnote: "Finally, even if student names and other identifying information were redacted, the expulsion records would still contain information directly related to students in violation of FERPA." This modification also requires the movement of text affecting pages 1395-1400 of the bound volume report.
OPINION
RICHLI, J.
The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed in this matter on December 31, 2002, is modified as follows:
A paragraph is to be added as the second full paragraph on page 8 [104 Cal.App.4th 1399, advance report, 3d full par.] as follows:
Finally, real party in interest argues in the alternative that the superior court be allowed to conduct an in camera review of the records so that versions redacted of student names and other identifiable information could be disclosed. We find no support for this in FERPA or in the cases interpreting FERPA. FERPA defines nondisclosable education records as "those records, files, documents, and other materials which—[¶] (i) contain information directly related to a student; and [¶] (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution ...." (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a) (4) (A).) Even if the student's name and other identifying information were redacted from an expulsion record, it would still contain "information directly related to a student," such as the specific reasons for the expulsion and other details. That information would be more than just the "directory information" allowed by 20 United States Code section 1232g(b) (2).
Except for this modification, the opinion remains unchanged. This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
Hollenhorst, Acting P. J., and Gaut, J., concurred.