Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

______________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK BY ORDER

LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK STATE

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21-CV-759-JLS(LGF)

Plaintiffs,

v.

NIAGARA-WHEATFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

______________________________________

APPEARANCES: LETITIA A. JAMES

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW YORK

Attorney for Plaintiffs

DANIEL RYAN MAGUIRE

Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel

Main Place Tower

Suite 300A

350 Main Street

Buffalo, New York 14202

and

SANDRA ELIZABETH PULLMAN

Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel

28 Liberty Street

20th Floor

New York, New York 10005

HARRIS BEACH MURTHA ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Attorneys for Defendant

DANIEL ROBERT LeCOURS, of Counsel

677 Broadway

Suite 1101

Albany, New York 12207

In this action seeking equitable relief for violations of Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and also asserting a state common law claim

for negligent supervision, on February 24, 2026, the undersigned issued an order

permitting the production by Defendant Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District

(“Defendant” or “the District”), of certain education records falling within the purview of

the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g and 34

C.F.R. § 99 (Dkt. 78) (“FERPA Order”). The FERPA Order directed Defendant to

disclose to Plaintiff “all relevant documents and other materials pertaining to students

who were involved in or aware of the alleged incidents of gender-based harassment and

sexual assault in the District, allegedly identified as TG, CC, AS, and LW in Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 11),” and in compliance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 99.31(a)(9)(i)

and (ii) (“§ 99.31__”). FERPA Order at 2. The FERPA Order further provides that “prior

to production of any records that contain personally identifiable information protected by

FERPA, the District shall comply with 34 C.F.R. § 99.31 and any other statute or

regulation that at the time of production is applicable to education records (“applicable

law”).” 1 Id. Attached to the FERPA Order was a form letter for Defendants to use to

inform potentially affected parents and legal guardians of the District’s intention to

disclose the education records of their students to Plaintiff. Defendant’s disclosures

1 Relevantly, § 99.31 provides:

(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education

record of a student without the consent required by § 99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the

following conditions:

* * * *

(9)(i) The disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena.

(ii) The educational agency or institution may disclose information under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this

section only if the agency or institution makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible

student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance, so that the parent or eligible student

may seek protective action, unless the disclosure is in compliance with . . . .[listing situations not

applicable here]

34 C.F.R. § 99.31

Further, the protective order referenced in § 99.31(a)(ii) may be sought by a non-litigant pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) “which permits any party or person from whom discovery is sought to ‘move for a

protective order in the court where the action is pending . . . .’” Smith v. Brown University, 695 F.Supp.3d

246, 250-51 (D.R.I. 2023) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)).

pursuant to the FERPA Order were considered as within the purview of the January 28,

2022 Confidentiality Order (Dkt. 29), id. at 3, and the court retained jurisdiction over all

persons subject to the FERPA Order insofar as it is necessary to enforce any

obligations arising thereunder or to impose any contempt sanctions, and the court

reserved the right to modify, in the court’s sole discretion, the FERPA Order at any time.

Id.

Following issuance of the FERPA Order, Defendant, in accordance with the

FERPA Order, advised the parents of those students whose records were chosen for

disclosure to Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs’ requests, of the District’s intention to

release such records to Plaintiffs unless objection was made to the undersigned.

Several objections to the release of the records were received by the undersigned or

Defendant’s counsel, and the objecting parents were advised to direct their objections to

Defendants counsel.

By letter dated April 2, 2026 (Dkt. 80) (“Letter Request”), Daniel LeCours, Esq.

(“LeCours”), Defendant’s attorney, advised the undersigned that he writes jointly on

behalf of the parties to this action, and that the parties have met and conferred, and

agreed upon a procedure by which the education records for those students on whose

behalf objections or further inquiries have been made could be released, specifically,

with all Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”), as defined in the relevant regulations,

redacted from the education records. Letter Request at 1. In support of this proposal,

the parties reference Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School District, 549 F.Supp.2d

288, 293 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Ragusa”), for the proposition that “there is nothing in FERPA

that would prohibit Defendants from releasing education records that had all ‘personally

identifiable information’ redacted”). Id. See also Doe v. Wesleyan University, 2021 WL

4704852, at * 8 n. 4 (D.Conn. Oct. 8, 2021) (“Wesleyan University”) (noting “that when

the requesting party consents to the redaction of all personally identifying information in

the records, FERPA may not even apply in the first instance.” (citing Stellwag v.

Quinnipiac University, 2010 WL 4823355. At * 1 n. 1 (D.Conn. Nov. 18, 2010)

(“Stellwag”) (quoting Ragusa))), and quoting U.S. v. Miami University, 294 F.3d 797,

824 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Miami University”) (“Nothing in . . . FERPA would prevent

universities from releasing properly redacted records.”)).2

Upon reviewing the Letter Request, the undersigned finds it appropriate to

amend the FERPA Order to provide as follows:

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9)(i) and (ii), the District shall produce all

relevant documents and other materials pertaining to students who were involved in or

aware of the alleged incidents of gender-based harassment and sexual assault in the

District, allegedly identified as TG, CC, AS, and LW in Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (Dkt. 11). Such production shall be made notwithstanding the fact that

Plaintiff has not obtained individual consent, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 99.30, from any

student(s) who may be named or otherwise identified in such materials.

2 The court notes that regulations promulgated under § 1232g overlook the provision imposing restrictions

to the “release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein . . . )” without

obtaining the consent of the student’s parents or guardians. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(1). See, e.g., 34

C.F.R. § 99.31(a) (An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information

from an education record of a student . . . .”) (italics added). This inconsistency calls into question

whether redacting PII in education records, without obtaining the consent of parents, complies with §

1232g. Neither Ragusa, Wesleyan University, Stellwag, Miami University, nor in any other published

decision regarding the release of education records in accordance with FERPA discusses this apparent

inconsistency.

2. Prior to production of any records that contain Personally Identifiable

Information (“PII”) the District shall redact such PII. As defined in the regulations

promulgated pursuant to and protected under FERPA, PII

. . . includes, but is not limited to—

(a) The student's name;

(b) The name of the student's parent or other family members;

(c) The address of the student or student's family;

(d) A personal identifier, such as the student's social security number, student

number, or biometric record;

(e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student's date of birth, place of birth,

and mother's maiden name;

(f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a

specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community,

who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify

the student with reasonable certainty; or

(g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution

reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education

record relates.

34 C.F.R. § 99.3

3. In addition to the redactions as ordered above, Defendants are directed to

rearrange the records so that they are produced in random order and not by

alphabetical order nor by class year.

4. Use of this information is limited to this action brought by the People of New

York by Letitia James, New York Attorney General against Niagara-Wheatfield Central

School District.

5. Access to this information is limited to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorneys, and any

expert hired to assist Plaintiff at trial.

6. None of the redacted disclosed information is to be photocopied, except to

provide one copy to Plaintiffs attorney, and one copy to be marked for use at any

depositions as needed. Any application to the court by motion or otherwise seeking to

use this information as an exhibit shall provide that such exhibit is filed under seal and is

not posted for public view on the court’s Electronic Court Filing system.

7. All disclosed and redacted information provided to Plaintiff by Defendant shall

be returned to the District upon the conclusion of this case.

8. Disclosure of documents and information pertaining to the individuals

referenced in paragraph 1 of this Order shall not preclude Plaintiff from seeking, through

a further motion, further disclosure under 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9)(i) and (ii) as it pertains

to such individuals or other individuals.

9. This Order is not intended to limit or expand the scope of discovery under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) or otherwise. The parties reserve all rights regarding the scope of

discovery, including the right to make an application to the court in accordance with

Local Rules of Civil Procedure – Western District of New York Rule 7(d)(3).

10. All disclosures made pursuant to this Order shall fall under the purview of the

Confidentiality Order (Dkt. 29) filed in the instant Action.

11. The court will retain jurisdiction over all persons subject to this Order to the

extent necessary to enforce any obligations arising hereunder or to impose sanctions

for any contempt thereof. Additionally, the court reserves the right, in its sole discretion,

to modify this Order at any time.

A copy of this Order shall be mailed to the objecting parents or guardians as

referenced hereinabove.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leslie G. Foschio

______________________________________

LESLIE G. FOSCHIO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: April 30, 2026

Buffalo, New York

Any appeal of this Decision and Order must be taken by filing written objection

with the Clerk of Court not later than 14 days after service of this Decision and

Order in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).