Austin v. Fordham University
- Sidney Stein
- 1:23-cv-04696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Austin v. Fordham University, Judge Stein approved discovery under a student-privacy law, allowing Fordham to identify potential witnesses with notice and confidentiality protections.
The order affects Francis Austin, Fordham University, Patrick Sweeney, and the resident advisers and students whose identities Fordham is authorized to provide. The identified students must receive advance notice and an opportunity to object, and their names and addresses will be treated as confidential discovery material.
What happened
In Austin v. Fordham University, the parties asked the court to approve an agreement allowing Fordham to answer two questions identifying resident advisers and students who may have information about Francis Austin’s allegations against Patrick Sweeney. The requested information concerned people who lived in Fordham’s Finlay Hall during the relevant periods.
The court said the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act protects student records but permits disclosure under a court order, provided affected students receive advance notice. It found that Austin had a genuine need for the names and addresses because the people identified could be witnesses to events that allegedly occurred more than a decade earlier. The court also found that the requests limited the effect on student privacy because they sought identifying information, not student records.
Judge Gary Stein granted the parties’ request and said he would sign the proposed stipulation and order. The order requires advance notice and an opportunity to object before disclosure, and treats the names and addresses as confidential discovery material.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Fordham University · No. 1:23-cv-04696
- Sidney Stein
- Apr. 4, 2024
Background
Francis Austin and Fordham University jointly asked the court to approve a proposed stipulation and order under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal student-privacy law commonly called FERPA. The proposed order would authorize Fordham to answer two interrogatories, which are written discovery questions:
1. Identify each resident adviser who lived in Fordham’s Finlay Hall during the periods from fall 2010 through spring 2012. 2. Identify each student who lived on the same floor as Austin and Patrick Sweeney during fall 2010 and spring 2011.
The opinion states that Austin alleges Sweeney violently raped him in February 2011 while they were roommates in Finlay Hall, after months of alleged verbal and physical threats. Austin also alleges that he reported Sweeney’s threats to a resident adviser in December 2010 and that Sweeney sexually assaulted him again in May 2012 in Fordham’s Keating Hall.
FERPA standard
FERPA generally directs the Secretary of Education to deny federal funds to an educational institution that has a policy or practice of releasing students’ education records or personally identifiable information without required consent. The statute defines education records as records or other materials that directly concern a student and are maintained by an educational institution or someone acting for it.
FERPA permits disclosure of education records when the information is provided under a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena, as long as parents and students receive advance notice. The court explained that FERPA therefore does not categorically prevent disclosure during civil discovery. But a court may not issue an order merely because the parties agree to disclosure. The party seeking disclosure must show a genuine need for the information that outweighs the students’ privacy interests.
Court’s analysis
The parties had not made the required showing in their joint letter or proposed stipulation. Austin stated that the information was relevant and not protected by FERPA, while Fordham disagreed. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it could decide the issue based on the nature of the requested information and its familiarity with the allegations and claims in the case.
The court found the interrogatories clearly relevant. The resident advisers and other students could be witnesses with important information about the alleged rape, sexual assault, and threats. Because the events occurred more than a decade earlier, the court found that Austin had a genuine need to identify these people. It also found that the requests were narrowly tailored: Fordham would provide names and present or last known addresses, rather than the students’ records. The court concluded that the requests therefore affected the students’ privacy interests only modestly.
Disposition
The court found that Austin’s genuine need for the requested information outweighed the students’ privacy interests and that the requirements for a judicial order under FERPA were satisfied. The proposed stipulation and order provides affected students with advance notice and an opportunity to object before disclosure. It also requires the students’ names and addresses to be treated as confidential discovery material under an existing protective order.
Judge Gary Stein granted the parties’ request and stated that he would sign the proposed Stipulation and Order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.