DeFeo v. McAboy

Citations: 260 F. Supp. 2d 790; 2003 WL 1961233Docket: 4:02 CV 1205 DDN

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri; February 4, 2003; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Ben DeFeo v. Chris McAboy, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri addressed a motion by the defendant for a protective order to prevent disclosure of documents subpoenaed from Rockhurst College regarding an incident involving the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff alleges that on March 28, 1999, the defendant, while intoxicated, negligently drove his vehicle into the plaintiff, causing injury. Both parties were students at Rockhurst College at the time, and the incident was subject to an investigation by the college's Safety and Security Department.

The plaintiff issued a subpoena for documents related to the incident, which Rockhurst responded to by submitting 42 documents under seal. The defendant objected to the release of these documents, claiming they were protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), arguing they were either privileged or unrelated to the specific incident in question. The plaintiff countered that he was only seeking documents relevant to the incident and was entitled to any written statements made by the defendant, which he contended fell outside FERPA protections.

FERPA generally protects students' educational records from disclosure, but it does allow exceptions, such as records maintained by a law enforcement unit for law enforcement purposes and documents requested by federal grand jury subpoenas, provided the issuing court orders confidentiality regarding the subpoena's existence and content.

Confidentiality orders for subpoenas issued for law enforcement purposes may be granted by the issuing court or agency. Under FERPA, educational institutions can disclose student education records pursuant to judicial orders or subpoenas for non-law enforcement reasons, provided that parents and students are notified in advance of compliance. Disclosure is also permitted to victims of specific crimes regarding the final results of disciplinary proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. The Secretary of Education has set regulations allowing institutions to disclose records without student consent if complying with a judicial order or subpoena, contingent upon reasonable efforts to notify parents or eligible students, unless restricted by a grand jury subpoena or law enforcement subpoena where disclosure is prohibited. FERPA does not provide a private cause of action but imposes obligations on educational institutions that can be enforced indirectly, such as through federal civil rights actions. Additionally, limitations imposed by FERPA can be enforced through motions for protective orders in court. The court has reviewed specific documents related to incidents involving Christopher McAboy and Benjamin DeFeo, identifying them without disclosing their substantive contents.

Letters and documents from various individuals and institutions related to Christopher McAboy's case include communications about service work, graduation, disciplinary proceedings, and various incident reports. The records are categorized as either disciplinary or law enforcement records, with disciplinary records defined as protected 'education records' under 1232g(a)(4)(A). The court identifies specific documents (1, 2, 5-29, 38) as part of the college's disciplinary proceedings against McAboy. The allegations involve negligent driving while intoxicated, which does not qualify as a crime of violence or a nonforcible sex offense under applicable law. Consequently, even if the case had involved such crimes, the college would be limited to disclosing only the final results of any disciplinary actions taken.

Documents subject to a lawful subpoena issued by the court are not protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), despite being typically shielded from disclosure. Specifically, campus police records are excluded from the definition of protected educational records under 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(F)(ii). The court identifies Documents 3, 4, 30-37, and 39-42 as unprotected by FERPA. Rockhurst College submitted these documents under seal, providing notice to the defendant (the involved student) and allowing for protective action, fulfilling the requirements of 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(2)(B) and 34 C.F.R. 99.31(a)(9)(i) and (ii). Despite the silent record regarding notice to the defendant's parents, compliance with FERPA is deemed adequate. The defendant contends that some documents fall outside permissible discovery due to irrelevance. However, discovery rules allow for relevant, non-privileged matters, and the court finds that the documents are relevant to the plaintiff’s claim of negligence and intoxication leading to a vehicular incident. Consequently, the court orders the unsealing of specific documents (1-5, 12, 16, 22, 26, and 28) for the parties' counsel while maintaining their seal for further order. Counsel is instructed to limit the disclosure of these documents strictly to the parties and for the purposes of this action. Additionally, a prior order allowed the plaintiff to issue a subpoena to Rockhurst College.