Harte v. Pace University

Background

Wendy Harte, proceeding without a lawyer, brought retaliation claims against, among others, her former employer, Pace University. She alleged that students in her spring 2021 Introduction to Critical Race and Ethnicity Studies class engaged in race-based bullying and that, after students complained about her, university supervisors observed the class. Harte was later removed from teaching the class but was paid the balance of her salary for the semester.

The district court previously dismissed Harte’s racial-discrimination, harassment, and defamation claims while allowing some retaliation claims to continue. The case was later referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis for general pretrial supervision and proceeded into discovery.

Discovery dispute

In February 2025, Pace and the other defendants produced more than 600 pages in response to Harte’s document request. The production included complaints from students in Harte’s class, but the defendants redacted the students’ names and identifying information based on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b).

Harte sought the redacted information. At a May 21, 2025 hearing, she explained that she wanted the identities to determine whether the defendants’ assertion that more than eight students had complained reflected that many different students or repeated complaints by fewer students. Magistrate Judge Willis denied the request from the bench and later memorialized that decision in an order. She found that Harte had not shown the genuine need required to overcome FERPA’s protection of student privacy and that her request was not proportionate to the needs of the case.

Standard of review

Under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive pretrial matter—such as a discovery dispute—under the deferential standard of whether the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The district court also explained that magistrate judges have broad discretion in resolving these disputes, and reversal is appropriate only when that discretion is abused.

Court’s analysis

The court described FERPA as protecting student privacy by limiting the disclosure of education records. Although FERPA permits disclosure under a court order, courts generally require a litigant seeking disclosure to show that the interests in obtaining the records outweigh the students’ privacy interests.

The court reviewed the hearing transcript and Magistrate Judge Willis’s order. It concluded that Judge Willis had not abused her discretion, committed clear error, or issued a decision contrary to law. The court agreed that Harte’s stated basis—distrust of the defendants’ representations about the number of students who complained—was insufficient by itself to overcome the students’ privacy interests.

The court also held that additional relevance arguments Harte raised in her objections were not properly before it because new arguments and factual assertions generally cannot be raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling.

Disposition

Judge Vargas overruled Harte’s objections to the May 21, 2025 discovery order. The court directed the clerk to terminate Harte’s motion, ECF No. 129. The opinion therefore left the student names and identifying information redacted in the discovery materials at issue.